handlebar height

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:37 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"

Quoted message said:

Really? Most bikes I see with threaded headsets are also too low,
even after you adjust the stem as high as is safe.

I don't see this. The stems usually have quite a bit of rise to them to
begin with, even though the adjustment range is limited. The stems on
threadless headset equipped bicycles usually have very little rise, though
you can now buy stems with adjustable rise. Part of the problem now, is the
tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them.

The bottom line is that you can add components to get the handlebars to the
proper height, but it's an extra expense unless you get the shop to include
the extender for free at the time of purchase.

Quoted message said:

Or, you could just get a stem with some rise to it, and reduce the risk to

your crotch in an unlikely endo.

Agreed, but why do most road bikes come with stems that have almost no rise?
I think that it's because the rise was supposed to be set by cutting the
steerer tube to the desired length and filling the space in-between with
spacers. Indeed this is what you'll often see on the higher-end bikes with
threadless headsets. It's fine. It lets the bike shop set the height and the
only part needed is some inexpensive spacers. It doesn't look very
attractive, but it's functional.

A stem with rise is certainly an option, but the objection is that with a
threaded headset the stems usually had sufficient rise without the need for
a change, if the bike were properly fitted. Again, part of the problem now,
is the tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them, which
requires more rise in the stem.

See: http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/bikes_framesize.html which
states:

"In General people ride bikes that are too small. <snip> Sore neck, sore
lower back, sore hand---and almost without exceptions it's caused by a frame
that's too small and doesn't let them raise the bars high enough to cure
these ills. Understandably, they're feeling foolish and bummed out.
Handlebars too low cause 90 percent of the discomfort people suffer. And
buying a frame too small guarantees that the bars will be too low."

Of course Grant Peterson must be wrong, because he sells a lot less bicycles
than Trek!

Quoted message said:

Come off it. Threadless and threaded are both fine systems, given proper

education on how to use them.

They are. With a device like the SpeedLifter, combined with a new stem (or
adjustable stem), I'd say that threadless is actually better. The question
is why we now have to spend $20-80 extra to achieve proper fit (or live with
improper fit).

Quoted message said:

It's not a conspiracy to put cyclists noses into the gravel; that is

simply

Quoted message said:

an undesirable side-effect. The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost. Afterward,
they came up with the "lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable,"
rationalizations for the change, and they emphasize these characteristics.

I

Quoted message said:

'm sure that as a bike shop owner you've seen broken threaded headsets,

but

Quoted message said:

I don't believe that durability, stiffness, and strongness, have been big
problems for headsets, especially on road bikes.

The simplest example I can give of the superiority of the threadless headset
is this- we used to replace a *lot* of headsets on road bikes. We now
replace them very rarely. The only difference between then and now being
threaded vs threadless. Yet that's not why the manufacturers changed over.
That was pretty much a marketing move, driven by a desire to incorporate
something that was seen as cool in the mountain-bike arena, back when road
bikes were a much smaller piece of the market than they are now. The fact
that threadless headsets have resulted in, on average, substantially-greater
lifespan... that's an unexpected bonus.

Truth? A properly-adjusted threaded headset will last just about forever.
Unfortunately, very few people know how to properly adjust a threaded
headset, and generally run them too tight initially, which dramatically
shortens their life. The threadless headset is far easier to adjust, and
the adjustment is much less critical, due to design elements.

Quoted message said:

Your shop is especially affected, since you sell only Trek's lines of
bicycles, and Trek has been very aggressive in propagating the biggest

three

Quoted message said:

cost reductions across their lines (aluminum frames, compact geometry, and
threadless headsets).

Examining your three "cost reductions" one at a time-

Compact geometry: TREK remains one of the few manufacturers that hasn't
adopted compact geometry in a big way... in the road line, the 1000, 1200,
1500, 2100, 2200, 2300, 5000, 5200, 5500, 5900 & Madone are all
conventional, non-compact designs. If you're talking about the Klein &
LeMond bikes, most of them are somewhere in-between the "compact" geometries
and conventional, and all of them come in far more sizes than sm, md & lg.
Thus I'm not sure where the cost-savings come in. Compact geometry only
saves costs when you have a very small number of sizes and try to fit people
with all manner of adjustable stems & seatposts.

Aluminum frames: Aluminum wasn't originally adopted as a means to save
costs, at least not in the way that tig-welded steel was. Aluminum was seen
as a way to keep weight down and differentiate product (because, with
aluminum, you can do all manner of strange things with tubing shape &
fabrication that wouldn't be practical with steel, primarily due to
wall-thickness limitations that don't allow you to adopt a very large tube
(in steel) unless you want a significant weight penalty or are willing to
risk beer-canning.

Present-day aluminum frames, incorporating carbon-fiber tail sections, are
considerably more expensive to fabricate than steel. However, if you're
trying to hit a weight target, an aluminum frame will do so less-expensively
than a steel equivalent.

Threadless headsets: The *only* cost savings I can think of with a
threadless headset come from simpler fork fabrication (no threads). The
headsets themselves cost more, not less (please don't ask me why, I really
don't know, but they do... some claims it's due to Cane Creek's licensing of
the design). The stems... I haven't seen any evidence of threadless stems
being cheaper. It seems like they ought to be, but at wholesale that's not
the case.

Quoted message said:

Simply writing off the customers that don't find a
Trek product that fits their needs is probably a profitable approach,

since

Quoted message said:

I would guess that shops that are tied to a single manufacturer get

special

Quoted message said:

pricing that makes up for lost sales from customers that don't find the
product that they want.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. I could carry many other lines at
considerably higher margins than I get with Trek product. Partly because
Trek is in a strong enough position that they don't feel they have to offer
dealers as much margin as other lines, and partly because other lines
repeatedly offer rather incredible deals to get their bikes into our stores.
In the end, however, we're probably more profitable with Trek than we would
be with anything else, because the company is so darned easy to work with if
something isn't quite right, and because they try so hard to anticipate and
meet the needs of the market. Rarely, as a Trek dealer, do I feel like I've
missed the boat on something our customers are looking for.

Quoted message said:

But you're certainly aware that you're sending a lot
of customers, who would rather patronize your store, a few miles north on
Foothill Expressway to a shop that carries fourteen different makes
(including Trek).

As long as [censored]'s ([censored] Powell, owner of Bicycle Outfitter, the shop you're
mentioning) doing a good job down the street, that doesn't bother me much.
As I said, you can't be all things to all people. Well, maybe that's wrong,
maybe he's figured out a way to do it. I just know that I can't. As was
said in the Dirty Harry movies, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Keeping a limit on the number of suppliers I deal with allows me to have
much better depth of inventory in the lines that I do carry, so I'm more
likely to have something when a customer comes into the store. It also
makes dealing with warranty issues far simpler.

There's more to it than just business, however. The long & short story is
that I've grown up alongside the engineering & design team at Trek; our
relationships go back 20 years. I've participated in a lot of product
meetings in Wisconsin, so there's a bit of me invested in the product on our
floor. So yeah, that means things like threadless headsets are partly my
fault (although, ironically, I was dead-set against them... I lost out on
that one, but it worked out for the best that I did). And triples on fast
road bikes? The 1220 model from the way-back days... that was my baby.
They still tell stories back there of other dealers making fun of me at a
particular product meeting for pushing the idea of a racing-style road bike
with a triple. So yes, I've got a lot going with Trek, and really wouldn't
expect to have that sort of influence with anyone else.

And finally, regarding competition in general- I think one of the biggest
dangers of cycling is that there is some critical number of shops needed to
support cycling in an area, and that, if we fall below that number (and, in
the SF Bay Area, we may have already), cycling becomes less convenient for
people to take up as a hobby, sport, recreational activity or even for
commuting. And when that happens, the remaining shops are worse off, not
better.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.

There is no place in this newsgroup for factual information,

particularly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when it flies in the face of those who think there's a conspiracy (of

which

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets, they feel, are a part) to put cyclists noses into

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gravel with low handlebars.

The original poster in this thread asked what a rider gained from the

lower

Quoted message said:

handlebar height.

It's not a conspiracy to put cyclists noses into the gravel; that is

simply

Quoted message said:

an undesirable side-effect. The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost. Afterward,
they came up with the "lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable,"
rationalizations for the change, and they emphasize these characteristics.

I

Quoted message said:

'm sure that as a bike shop owner you've seen broken threaded headsets,

but

Quoted message said:

I don't believe that durability, stiffness, and strongness, have been big
problems for headsets, especially on road bikes.

Your shop is especially affected, since you sell only Trek's lines of
bicycles, and Trek has been very aggressive in propagating the biggest

three

Quoted message said:

cost reductions across their lines (aluminum frames, compact geometry, and
threadless headsets). Simply writing off the customers that don't find a
Trek product that fits their needs is probably a profitable approach,

since

Quoted message said:

I would guess that shops that are tied to a single manufacturer get

special

Quoted message said:

pricing that makes up for lost sales from customers that don't find the
product that they want. But you're certainly aware that you're sending a

lot

Quoted message said:

of customers, who would rather patronize your store, a few miles north on
Foothill Expressway to a shop that carries fourteen different makes
(including Trek).

Quoted message said:

And finally, regarding competition in general- I think one of the
biggest dangers of cycling is that there is some critical number of
shops needed to support cycling in an area, and that, if we fall below
that number (and, in the SF Bay Area, we may have already), cycling
becomes less convenient for people to take up as a hobby, sport,
recreational activity or even for commuting. And when that happens,
the remaining shops are worse off, not better.

Mike, that was a great post. And an insight on Western cycling.

My agenda has always been that the more people you can get on bicycles
the better, and if you can put them on the street well trained and
equipped, well, that's a good idea.

I have no financial interest in bicycle shops. But I see your point.

I want to make it easy for people to enter the sport. Call me a
voice in the wilderness, or whatever, but our interests coincide.

I want bicyclists on the street in large numbers, trained, effective
bicyclists. I want to see the USA become a bicycling nation in my
lifetime.

I have a dream where the children of SUV owners and the children of
car owners reject the past and come together in the Church of the
Spoked Wheel, and take back our cities in the name of efficiency,
righteousness, and belief.

However, there will be a period of readjustment.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not a conspiracy to put cyclists noses into the gravel; that is

simply

Quoted message said:

an undesirable side-effect. The reason that the manufacturers went to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost. Afterward,
they came up with the "lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable,"
rationalizations for the change, and they emphasize these

characteristics.

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

'm sure that as a bike shop owner you've seen broken threaded headsets,

but

Quoted message said:

I don't believe that durability, stiffness, and strongness, have been

big

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

problems for headsets, especially on road bikes.

The simplest example I can give of the superiority of the threadless

headset

Quoted message said:

is this- we used to replace a *lot* of headsets on road bikes. We now
replace them very rarely. The only difference between then and now being
threaded vs threadless. Yet that's not why the manufacturers changed

over.

Quoted message said:

That was pretty much a marketing move, driven by a desire to incorporate
something that was seen as cool in the mountain-bike arena, back when road
bikes were a much smaller piece of the market than they are now. The fact
that threadless headsets have resulted in, on average,

substantially-greater

Quoted message said:

lifespan... that's an unexpected bonus.

Truth? A properly-adjusted threaded headset will last just about forever.
Unfortunately, very few people know how to properly adjust a threaded
headset, and generally run them too tight initially, which dramatically
shortens their life. The threadless headset is far easier to adjust, and
the adjustment is much less critical, due to design elements.

Quoted message said:

Your shop is especially affected, since you sell only Trek's lines of
bicycles, and Trek has been very aggressive in propagating the biggest

three

Quoted message said:

cost reductions across their lines (aluminum frames, compact geometry,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets).

Examining your three "cost reductions" one at a time-

Compact geometry: TREK remains one of the few manufacturers that hasn't
adopted compact geometry in a big way... in the road line, the 1000, 1200,
1500, 2100, 2200, 2300, 5000, 5200, 5500, 5900 & Madone are all
conventional, non-compact designs. If you're talking about the Klein &
LeMond bikes, most of them are somewhere in-between the "compact"

geometries

Quoted message said:

and conventional, and all of them come in far more sizes than sm, md & lg.
Thus I'm not sure where the cost-savings come in. Compact geometry only
saves costs when you have a very small number of sizes and try to fit

people

Quoted message said:

with all manner of adjustable stems & seatposts.

Aluminum frames: Aluminum wasn't originally adopted as a means to save
costs, at least not in the way that tig-welded steel was. Aluminum was

seen

Quoted message said:

as a way to keep weight down and differentiate product (because, with
aluminum, you can do all manner of strange things with tubing shape &
fabrication that wouldn't be practical with steel, primarily due to
wall-thickness limitations that don't allow you to adopt a very large tube
(in steel) unless you want a significant weight penalty or are willing to
risk beer-canning.

Present-day aluminum frames, incorporating carbon-fiber tail sections, are
considerably more expensive to fabricate than steel. However, if you're
trying to hit a weight target, an aluminum frame will do so

less-expensively

Quoted message said:

than a steel equivalent.

Threadless headsets: The *only* cost savings I can think of with a
threadless headset come from simpler fork fabrication (no threads). The
headsets themselves cost more, not less (please don't ask me why, I really
don't know, but they do... some claims it's due to Cane Creek's licensing

of

Quoted message said:

the design). The stems... I haven't seen any evidence of threadless stems
being cheaper. It seems like they ought to be, but at wholesale that's

not

Quoted message said:

the case.

Quoted message said:

Simply writing off the customers that don't find a
Trek product that fits their needs is probably a profitable approach,

since

Quoted message said:

I would guess that shops that are tied to a single manufacturer get

special

Quoted message said:

pricing that makes up for lost sales from customers that don't find the
product that they want.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. I could carry many other lines at
considerably higher margins than I get with Trek product. Partly because
Trek is in a strong enough position that they don't feel they have to

offer

Quoted message said:

dealers as much margin as other lines, and partly because other lines
repeatedly offer rather incredible deals to get their bikes into our

stores.

Quoted message said:

In the end, however, we're probably more profitable with Trek than we

would

Quoted message said:

be with anything else, because the company is so darned easy to work with

if

Quoted message said:

something isn't quite right, and because they try so hard to anticipate

and

Quoted message said:

meet the needs of the market. Rarely, as a Trek dealer, do I feel like

I've

Quoted message said:

missed the boat on something our customers are looking for.

Quoted message said:

But you're certainly aware that you're sending a lot
of customers, who would rather patronize your store, a few miles north

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Foothill Expressway to a shop that carries fourteen different makes
(including Trek).

As long as [censored]'s ([censored] Powell, owner of Bicycle Outfitter, the shop

you're

Quoted message said:

mentioning) doing a good job down the street, that doesn't bother me much.
As I said, you can't be all things to all people. Well, maybe that's

wrong,

Quoted message said:

maybe he's figured out a way to do it. I just know that I can't. As was
said in the Dirty Harry movies, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Keeping a limit on the number of suppliers I deal with allows me to have
much better depth of inventory in the lines that I do carry, so I'm more
likely to have something when a customer comes into the store. It also
makes dealing with warranty issues far simpler.

There's more to it than just business, however. The long & short story is
that I've grown up alongside the engineering & design team at Trek; our
relationships go back 20 years. I've participated in a lot of product
meetings in Wisconsin, so there's a bit of me invested in the product on

our

Quoted message said:

floor. So yeah, that means things like threadless headsets are partly my
fault (although, ironically, I was dead-set against them... I lost out on
that one, but it worked out for the best that I did). And triples on fast
road bikes? The 1220 model from the way-back days... that was my baby.
They still tell stories back there of other dealers making fun of me at a
particular product meeting for pushing the idea of a racing-style road

bike

Quoted message said:

with a triple. So yes, I've got a lot going with Trek, and really

wouldn't

Quoted message said:

expect to have that sort of influence with anyone else.

And finally, regarding competition in general- I think one of the biggest
dangers of cycling is that there is some critical number of shops needed

to

Quoted message said:

support cycling in an area, and that, if we fall below that number (and,

in

Quoted message said:

the SF Bay Area, we may have already), cycling becomes less convenient for
people to take up as a hobby, sport, recreational activity or even for
commuting. And when that happens, the remaining shops are worse off, not
better.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
> what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.

There is no place in this newsgroup for factual information,

particularly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when it flies in the face of those who think there's a conspiracy (of

which

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets, they feel, are a part) to put cyclists noses into

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gravel with low handlebars.

The original poster in this thread asked what a rider gained from the

lower

Quoted message said:

handlebar height.

It's not a conspiracy to put cyclists noses into the gravel; that is

simply

Quoted message said:

an undesirable side-effect. The reason that the manufacturers went to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost. Afterward,
they came up with the "lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable,"
rationalizations for the change, and they emphasize these

characteristics.

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

'm sure that as a bike shop owner you've seen broken threaded headsets,

but

Quoted message said:

I don't believe that durability, stiffness, and strongness, have been

big

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

problems for headsets, especially on road bikes.

Your shop is especially affected, since you sell only Trek's lines of
bicycles, and Trek has been very aggressive in propagating the biggest

three

Quoted message said:

cost reductions across their lines (aluminum frames, compact geometry,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets). Simply writing off the customers that don't find a
Trek product that fits their needs is probably a profitable approach,

since

Quoted message said:

I would guess that shops that are tied to a single manufacturer get

special

Quoted message said:

pricing that makes up for lost sales from customers that don't find the
product that they want. But you're certainly aware that you're sending a

lot

Quoted message said:

of customers, who would rather patronize your store, a few miles north

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Foothill Expressway to a shop that carries fourteen different makes
(including Trek).

Mike! How dare you dispute a dearly held emotional position with facts!
That is very inconsiderate of you. Do you know the discomfort and confusion
you can cause a poster... at least until he discovers that an ad homonym
attack will make him feel better!

Steven M. Scharf said:

The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost.

You're claiming facts not in evidence. No evidence of lower
manufacturing costs exists, AFAIK.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Bernie said:

In almost 50 years of bicycle riding I never had a problem with the
headset other than having to tighten it up now and then. No breaks or
anything. AND infinite adjustability, with a simple wrench.

I've never had any problem with either type of headset; and the
"simple wrench" of which you speak (32 or 36mm, thin and strong) is
uncommon and costs money. OTOH, threadless headsets are 100%
serviced with a single allen wrench, which you've already got for
the rest of the bike.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but I like threaded headsets. They are also attractive and slim
vs BUTT UGLY

Those are fine reasons to like one or the other. Ignorance about
adjustment procedures or serviceability is not a good reason.
--
Rick Onanian

Steven M. Scharf said:

"Rick Onanian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:37 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
Really? Most bikes I see with threaded headsets are also too low,
even after you adjust the stem as high as is safe.

I don't see this. The stems usually have quite a bit of rise to them to

Must be a regional thing, or maybe you're talking about mountain
bikes. I've _never_ seen a road bike with a quill stem that rises.

Quoted message said:

begin with, even though the adjustment range is limited. The stems on
threadless headset equipped bicycles usually have very little rise, though

Most threadless stems have a reasonable amount of rise, they're just
installed upside-down.

Quoted message said:

you can now buy stems with adjustable rise. Part of the problem now, is the
tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them.

A too-small bike will have the bars too low regardless of the stem.

Quoted message said:

The bottom line is that you can add components to get the handlebars to the
proper height, but it's an extra expense unless you get the shop to include
the extender for free at the time of purchase.

What extender? Most shops will give you an even swap on a stem with
a better angle, installed pointing up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or, you could just get a stem with some rise to it, and reduce the risk to

your crotch in an unlikely endo.

Agreed, but why do most road bikes come with stems that have almost no rise?

Marketing...and it's the same for threaded and threadless.

Quoted message said:

A stem with rise is certainly an option, but the objection is that with a
threaded headset the stems usually had sufficient rise without the need for

The only threaded stems I've seen that don't drop ("classic 7
shape"😉 have been on mountain bikes. While one could certainly fit
an aftermarket threaded stem with rise, that would cost money (just
like your claim of the extender for threadless).

Quoted message said:

a change, if the bike were properly fitted. Again, part of the problem now,
is the tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them, which
requires more rise in the stem.

See: http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/bikes_framesize.html which
states:

"In General people ride bikes that are too small. <snip> Sore neck, sore
lower back, sore hand---and almost without exceptions it's caused by a frame
that's too small and doesn't let them raise the bars high enough to cure

Of course Grant Peterson must be wrong, because he sells a lot less bicycles
than Trek!

Grant Peterson said _nothing_ about stems there. He attributed the
handlebar height to incorrect frame sizing. He's right. Few bikes
come stock with a stem that can compensate for an incorrectly fit
frame.

I went to the Rivendell site to find some examples of new road bikes
sold with threaded stems. Lo and behold, the pictured stems have
drop, not rise. Of course, they would be happy to change the stem,
just as an LBS will with the common threadless stems available.
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/images/bikes_rivendell_whole2.jpg
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/images/bikes_mainatlantis2.jpg
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/images/bikes_mainrambouillet2.jpg

I checked a few other bike companies' websites, but mostly found
threadless stems. The Bianchi Brava and Strada come with a threaded,
adjustable stem. The rest of the Bianchi road bikes were threadless.
Of course, some threadless bikes come with adjustable stems too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Come off it. Threadless and threaded are both fine systems, given proper

education on how to use them.

They are. With a device like the SpeedLifter, combined with a new stem (or
adjustable stem), I'd say that threadless is actually better. The question
is why we now have to spend $20-80 extra to achieve proper fit (or live with
improper fit).

It's not necessary to spend any extra money if you're buying a new
bike; most shops will swap a threadless stem for free. OTOH, I don't
know if they will for a threaded that offers inadequate height.
--
Rick Onanian

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:25:26 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've never had any problem with either type of headset; and the
"simple wrench" of which you speak (32 or 36mm, thin and strong) is
uncommon and costs money. OTOH, threadless headsets are 100%

I forgot to mention, the allen wrench for a threadless stem is much
easier to pack in a seat bag.
--
Rick Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

Steven M. Scharf said:

The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost.

You're claiming facts not in evidence. No evidence of lower
manufacturing costs exists, AFAIK.

It save a tremendous amount of cost. There is no need to manufacture
multiple lengths of forks with threaded steerers, for every different frame
size. There is no need for different stem sizes; rise is set with spacers.

It would be a fine system if they left the steerer tubes fairly long and had
the bike shops cut them to length at the time of sale, and in fact this
occurs in some cases. You still lose adjustability though.

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

Quoted message said:

I've never had any problem with either type of headset; and the
"simple wrench" of which you speak (32 or 36mm, thin and strong) is
uncommon and costs money. OTOH, threadless headsets are 100%
serviced with a single allen wrench, which you've already got for
the rest of the bike.

This is true. But the headset wrenches don't cost much. I have some for my
Cool Tool, and I think that they were $5 for each size.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but I like threaded headsets. They are also attractive and slim
vs BUTT UGLY

The ugliness shouldn't be a factor, but of course for some people it is. The
threaded headsets are just much more attractive in terms of their industrial
design.

A lot of the dislike of the threadless headsets stems (no pun intended) from
bicycle manufacturers not implementing them properly. This results in the
very low handlebars that the original poster complained about. If they were
properly implemented then there wouldn't be such a backlash against them.

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:25:26 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've never had any problem with either type of headset; and the
"simple wrench" of which you speak (32 or 36mm, thin and strong) is
uncommon and costs money. OTOH, threadless headsets are 100%

I forgot to mention, the allen wrench for a threadless stem is much
easier to pack in a seat bag.

The headset wrenches for the Cool Tool are not large. Not as small as an
Allen wrench though. Of course unless you're touring you really don't need
to worry about carrying a headset wrench, and most touring bikes still use
threaded headsets so an Allen wrench wouldn't help you there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're claiming facts not in evidence. No evidence of lower
manufacturing costs exists, AFAIK.

It save a tremendous amount of cost. There is no need to manufacture
multiple lengths of forks with threaded steerers, for every different

frame

Quoted message said:

size. There is no need for different stem sizes; rise is set with spacers.

Steven: Those cost savings occur only for aftermarket fork sales, not at
the manufacturing end. The manufacturer still has to cut forks to length
for each bike size. The only difference is that, for a threadless fork,
there is no separate threading operation. For what it's worth, I've watched
the cutting/threading operation; it's pretty slick & fast. Any cost savings
from not threading the fork are pretty minimal.

Quoted message said:

There is no need for different stem sizes; rise is set with spacers.

Nothing changes there from quill to threadless; any competent bike
manufacturer is going to size the stem for the size of the bike, with
smaller bikes getting shorter stems than larger bikes. No different from
with a quill stem.

Quoted message said:

It would be a fine system if they left the steerer tubes fairly long and

had

Quoted message said:

the bike shops cut them to length at the time of sale, and in fact this
occurs in some cases. You still lose adjustability though.

OK, I just took some measurements. Using a 9cm, 17-degree threadless stem,
with a 4cm stack height, I can accomplish any height needed between 0 and
9cm above parallel. That's a 9cm difference; obviously, 5cm of that
difference comes from the stem, and 4cm from the spacers. Using a 25-degree
stem, I can get 12cm height above parallel. There are only a couple of
quill stems on the market that offer that kind of range, and rarely do they
(or did they ever) come on stock bikes. I can categorically and truthfully
state that, for the bikes I sell, the threadless stem offers the customer a
*wider* range of adjustment than what was previously offered.

Regarding leaving the steer tubes very long, the Trek engineers don't
warrant anything longer than 4cm above the headset. That's what they've
tested for, and, to them, that seems like a reasonable length. It's
possible that you could engineer a fork with beefier steer tube walls and
consider it safer at a taller length, but the world is full of compromises,
and in this case, they deemed 4cm a reasonable length of exposed steer tube
column (as opposed to adding weight and running it taller).

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Steven M. Scharf said:

The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost.

You're claiming facts not in evidence. No evidence of lower
manufacturing costs exists, AFAIK.

It save a tremendous amount of cost. There is no need to manufacture
multiple lengths of forks with threaded steerers, for every different

frame

Quoted message said:

size. There is no need for different stem sizes; rise is set with spacers.

It would be a fine system if they left the steerer tubes fairly long and

had

Quoted message said:

the bike shops cut them to length at the time of sale, and in fact this
occurs in some cases. You still lose adjustability though.

Rick Onanian said:

Quoted message said:

In almost 50 years of bicycle riding I never had a problem with the
headset other than having to tighten it up now and then. No breaks or
anything. AND infinite adjustability, with a simple wrench.

Well, I was talking about the quill screw that tightens and loosens the
handlebar. Usually takes an allen wrench and allows one to raise or
lower the bar in very small increments. Those small changes can add
greatly to one's comfort.

Quoted message said:

I've never had any problem with either type of headset; and the
"simple wrench" of which you speak (32 or 36mm, thin and strong) is
uncommon and costs money. OTOH, threadless headsets are 100%
serviced with a single allen wrench, which you've already got for
the rest of the bike.

No argument there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but I like threaded headsets. They are also attractive and slim
vs BUTT UGLY

Those are fine reasons to like one or the other. Ignorance about
adjustment procedures or serviceability is not a good reason.
--
Rick Onanian

Cheers,
Bernie

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

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian said:

Quoted message said:

In almost 50 years of bicycle riding I never had a problem with the
headset other than having to tighten it up now and then. No breaks or
anything. AND infinite adjustability, with a simple wrench.

Well, I was talking about the quill screw that tightens and loosens the
handlebar. Usually takes an allen wrench and allows one to raise or
lower the bar in very small increments. Those small changes can add
greatly to one's comfort.

Sometimes it takes a block of wood to hit the quill screw to loosen the
wedge. A rather crude system, but it works well.

Steven M. Scharf said:

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

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian said:

>In almost 50 years of bicycle riding I never had a problem with the
>headset other than having to tighten it up now and then. No breaks or
>anything. AND infinite adjustability, with a simple wrench.
>

Well, I was talking about the quill screw that tightens and loosens the
handlebar. Usually takes an allen wrench and allows one to raise or
lower the bar in very small increments. Those small changes can add
greatly to one's comfort.

Sometimes it takes a block of wood to hit the quill screw to loosen the
wedge. A rather crude system, but it works well.

Yes it does. I've always considered smacking a piece of metal with a
chunk of wood to be a "benign" thing to do. No harm done, and the piece
moves as directed.
(still lamenting the passing of the threaded headset)
Bernie

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

My racing days are far behind me, and, at 48, I'm not terribly close to
being in my 20s-30s either. I'm also not terribly flexible (I can't come
close to touching my toes and *never* do stretching exercises). But, on a
60cm frame, my bars are about 2.5 inches below the seat, and that's
considerably more comfortable for me than a higher bar. My point? That a
higher bar does *not* automatically, mean more comfort.

Why might a lower bar make for a more-comfortable ride? In my case, it's
because it takes pressure off my tail end and distributes it forward, to may
arms. Obviously, there's a balance, and that balance may be different for
different people. But for me, I can ride 100 miles *very* comfortably, with
no saddle pain, providing the bars are a reasonable distance below the
saddle. Raise the bars and I'm fine on a shorter ride, but get saddle-sore
on longer expeditions.

Mike,

That begs the question, did you just raise the bars or did you raise the bars
*and* change the saddle. With higher bars your hip is oriented differently,
and the profile of the ischium that contacts the saddle is different - it is
indeed wider. If you raise the bars and keep your basic narrow saddle then
you will feel that the saddle is, ummm, a bit invasive. I love the Terry Fly
on the bikes I have with the bars a couple of inches lower than the saddle,
but when I move the bars up to even (e.g., on my touring bike) then the Fly
feels like an [censored] hatchet. Interesting how few wide, firm saddles there
are out there.

- rick