handlebar height

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
chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

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

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-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[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
chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

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 bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

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:
rivendellbicycles.combikes framesize.htmlOpen ↗
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. rivendellbicy-rivendellbicy-Open ↗
cles.com/images/bikes_rivendell_whole2.jpg riven-riven-Open ↗
dellbicycles.com/images/bikes_mainatlantis2.jpg --Open ↗
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

"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.

"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:

Rick Onanian 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]-
ink.net...

Quoted message said:

"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tmorse-
[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:40819594.4070207@mouse-
potato.com...

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