Threaded vs threadless headsets

dvt said:

Donald Gillies said:

threadless
+ easier to remove and replace handlebars

Why would this be true? Both types of stems can have removable
faceplates. That's not related to the headset type.

None of the "aesthetically pleasing" threaded stems have removable
faceplates.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

dvt said:

Donald Gillies said:

threadless
+ easier to remove and replace handlebars

Why would this be true? Both types of stems can have removable
faceplates. That's not related to the headset type.

None of the "aesthetically pleasing" threaded stems have removable
faceplates.

The 3T Motus has removable faceplates and it's not that ugly to my eyes.

Francesco

Sheldon Brown said:

Jasper Janssen guessed:

Quoted message said:

A stack of spacers on it plus the cap while adjusting the headset, later
removed?

That would work if I had a star nut in the fork, but I don't. Indeed, in
another bike with a similar setup I run the cyclometer wiring through
the steerer...don't have as good a photo of that though.

However that would be WAY too much trouble!

What I actually do is:

Put an Allen wrench in my pocket, loosen both the stem and the collar on
the steerer.

I stand in front of the bike and push down really hard on the
handlebars, so the stem pushes down on the collar. While applying
downward pressure I twist the bars from side to side and wiggle them
forward and back to take out all of the slack.

Once the slack is gone I let go of one side of the handlebar (while
still maintaining heavy downward force on the other side), pull the
Allen wrench out of my pocket and tighten up the collar's pinch bolt.

Once the collar is secured I put the handlebars up where I want them.

I don't know how well this might work on a 1" setup, but 1 1/8"
threadless headsets seem to respond well to this approach.

Hmm. I don't see any reason why 1" would be all that much less amenable to
this (except for the availibility of seatpost clamps in 25.4). It does
kind of take out the whole "easy to set preload" advantage of threadless,
since you pretty much set the preload by feel (slack aside, the actual
force corresponds to however hard you push down), but then I've never
really seen that as necessary much, since you so rarely need to do it
(unless, of course, you lose the headset adjustment when you move the
bars...).

Jasper

Squid-in-Training said:

dvt said:

Donald Gillies said:

threadless
+ easier to remove and replace handlebars

Why would this be true? Both types of stems can have removable
faceplates. That's not related to the headset type.

None of the "aesthetically pleasing" threaded stems have removable
faceplates.

Yeah, but conversely non of the removable-faceplate stem in *either*
format are esthetically pleasing. And I'd go so far as to say that the
vast majority of threadless stems are inherently inaesthetic. All those
blasted visible bolts and bolt-paths.

Jasper

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:48:00 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

Donald Gillies wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

threaded
+ simpler to adjust pre-load once stem height is set.

Eh, not really true, since preload requires a friggin' big, specialized
wrench that is not available from just any hardware store.

A 12" adjustable seems to work reasonably well in a pinch, and *is*
available in any hardware store.

I've used that for the locknut but needed the special wrench for the
cup.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:48:00 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

Donald Gillies wrote:

Quoted message said:

> threaded
> + simpler to adjust pre-load once stem height is set.

Eh, not really true, since preload requires a friggin' big, specialized
wrench that is not available from just any hardware store.

A 12" adjustable seems to work reasonably well in a pinch, and *is*
available in any hardware store.

I've used that for the locknut but needed the special wrench for the
cup.

JT

And I've found two 32mm headset wrenches to work the best. Better than
getting a big Crescent wrench on the locknut.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Paul

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

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Jasper Janssen guessed:

Quoted message said:

A stack of spacers on it plus the cap while adjusting the headset,

later

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

removed?

That would work if I had a star nut in the fork, but I don't. Indeed, in
another bike with a similar setup I run the cyclometer wiring through
the steerer...don't have as good a photo of that though.

However that would be WAY too much trouble!

What I actually do is:

Put an Allen wrench in my pocket, loosen both the stem and the collar on
the steerer.

I stand in front of the bike and push down really hard on the
handlebars, so the stem pushes down on the collar. While applying
downward pressure I twist the bars from side to side and wiggle them
forward and back to take out all of the slack.

Once the slack is gone I let go of one side of the handlebar (while
still maintaining heavy downward force on the other side), pull the
Allen wrench out of my pocket and tighten up the collar's pinch bolt.

Once the collar is secured I put the handlebars up where I want them.

I don't know how well this might work on a 1" setup, but 1 1/8"
threadless headsets seem to respond well to this approach.

Hmm. I don't see any reason why 1" would be all that much less amenable to
this (except for the availibility of seatpost clamps in 25.4). It does
kind of take out the whole "easy to set preload" advantage of threadless,
since you pretty much set the preload by feel (slack aside, the actual
force corresponds to however hard you push down), but then I've never
really seen that as necessary much, since you so rarely need to do it
(unless, of course, you lose the headset adjustment when you move the
bars...).

Jasper

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Paulus said:

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there, I have an old bicycle frame (early '90's). I am wondering if
the older style frames can accept threadless headsets.
Also, are there any advantages to the threadless ones? Looking at them
they appear harder to adjust and get one's fork's out of the frame.

Cheers
P

Thanks for the info 🙂

P

No, you can't get away that easily. We're not done arguing yet.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:48:00 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

Donald Gillies wrote:

Quoted message said:

> threaded
> + simpler to adjust pre-load once stem height is set.

Eh, not really true, since preload requires a friggin' big, specialized
wrench that is not available from just any hardware store.

A 12" adjustable seems to work reasonably well in a pinch, and *is*
available in any hardware store.

I've used that for the locknut but needed the special wrench for the
cup.

One frame of mine has a Stronglight head set. The preload system has
three components: cup, retainer ring, and lock down nut. The cup threads
onto the steering tube and is knurled; the pre load is set by finger
tightening the cup on the steering tube threads. The steering tube has a
flat and the retainer ring has a matching flat built up inside so that
the retainer ring does not rotate about the steering tube. The cup and
retainer ring each have teeth that engage upon one another so that the
cup is prevented from unscrewing not by bumping up against the retainer
ring but by the engaged teeth. The lock down nut prevents the retainer
ring from riding up. And since the retainer ring cannot rotate, it
cannot coax the lock down nut to rotate.

The teeth look something like this:
=====================================================================
#####/\############/\############/\############/\############/\######
####/ \##########/ \##########/ \##########/ \##########/ \#####
###/ \########/ \########/ \########/ \########/ \####
##/ /\ \######/ /\ \######/ /\ \######/ /\ \######/ /\ \###
#/ /##\ \####/ /##\ \####/ /##\ \####/ /##\ \####/ /##\ \##
/ /####\ \##/ /####\ \##/ /####\ \##/ /####\ \##/ /####\ \#
/######\ \/ /######\ \/ /######\ \/ /######\ \/ /######\ \
/########\ /########\ /########\ /########\ /########\
/##########\ /##########\ /##########\ /##########\ /##########\
############\/############\/############\/############\/############\
=====================================================================

You will say that the teeth engagement constrains the cup to be in one
of only N discrete angular positions where N is the number of teeth, and
this will not allow for fine adjustment of the bearing pre-load. The
feature that makes the system elegant is that the retainer ring has 40
teeth and the cup has 39 teeth. Hence the cup is constrained to 39x40 =
1560 discrete positions, which is a practical continuum in this system.
Of course the discrepancy in the number of teeth means that they cannot
all engage, but when the retainer ring is forced against the cup most of
teeth are partially engaged preventing the cup from rotating.

A final refinement. If the retainer ring and the cup had the same number
of teeth there could be some play between teeth, but with the vernier
system the teeth are forced against one another by the differenial
trying to resolve itself thereby preventing even a small bit of play.

In summary the cup cannot rotate because of pre-loaded metal to metal
contact on the teeth of the retainer ring that cannot rotate because it
is engaged to a flat on the steering tube. The retainer ring cannot rise
because the lock down nut pushes down on it. The retainer ring does not
rotate against the lock down nut.

This headset is all steel and the plating is pristine after 30 years.
It works perfectly.

--
Michael Press

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:10:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Werehatrack said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:53:23 +1000, "Paulus" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hi there, I have an old bicycle frame (early '90's). I am wondering if the
older style frames can accept threadless headsets.

Yes, threadless bearings can be had for older frames, but...what's the
stem tube diameter? You may find it difficult to locate a headset or
threadless-stem fork for a 1"-steerer setup. Needless to say, you
have to stick with the steerer diameter that the frame was built to
accept.

This may have been true in the pre-internet era, when one might have had
to rely on the LBS or a few mail-order catalogs.

Nowadays?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Profile-1-Threadless-All-Carbon-Fork-w-Headset_W0QQit
emZ7188068006QQcategoryZ56196QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

It took me longer to write this newspost than it did to find that fork.
Picky users are invited to Google up their own variations (steel
steerer, all-steel, canti posts, whatever), and I'm pretty sure more
than one major mail-order house deals in headsets.

All of this assumes that the forks available are appropriate for the
usage intended. That carbon fork on eBay wouldn't have been of much
use to someone who wanted to retrofit an older mtb. The OP didn't say
whther the intended usage was road, mtb, cruiser or something else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, are there any advantages to the threadless ones? Looking at them they
appear harder to adjust and get one's fork's out of the frame.

Swapping forks is easier and faster with threadless IMO, and decent
threadless setups are more secure than the average threaded ones.
Threadless often provides much less adjustability, however, and
getting the bar heinght just right can be an expensive exercise as a
result.

Well, users who are unsure of their ideal stem height are recommended to
NOT CUT THE STEERER!

Nice thought, but when the steerer as received is already too short to
provide any significant amount of adjustment, then it doesn't help
much to advise not cutting it. I have two frames on which 265mm of
steerer tube leaves about 20mm of spacers to shift when adjusting the
stem height. Ergo, sometimes there's just not enough tube...and that
is when getting the bar position right can be an expensive bit of
trial-and-error.

Quoted message said:

Seriously, most of the shibboleths about threadless
stem adjustability are based on the idea that a cyclist might be faced
with a bicycle with the wrong stem for their needs and a stem cut to the
minimum length. I count that as two mistakes during the original build
of the bike, but only one needs to be corrected to fix the problem, and
there are actually three solutions:

1) buy a new fork

Assuming one that fits the needs implied is available for a reasonable
cost. Not always true, particualrly in the mtb area. (Sometiems, a
replacement crown with a longer tube can be had, but once again, not
always, and often not inexpensively.)

Quoted message said:

2) buy the appropriate stem

That's the rub; the "appropriate" stem may not exist.
BTDT,PTT-SASTMR.[1]

Quoted message said:

3) use a $20 stem extender:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/stems/index.html

That often becomes the only useful route, though sometimes you end up
with the dilemma that the ideal stem position would have been right
where the shoulder of the extender ended up.

One size doesn't fit anywhere near as many with threadless as it did
with threaded, though as you say, the problem can be mitigated in many
cases if the bike maker gives you enough tube to begin with. But
that, unfortunately, is neither the cheap way to build the bikes (it
costs more for the extra spacers and their installation, while the
steerer tubes can be delivered at any requested length for the same
price regardless) nor does it give the sleek, trim appearance of a
headset that has just one slim spacer installed, if that. Yes, you
and I (and others in the know) realize that a big stack of spacers (or
one long one) is a sign that the bike maker was thinking about the
fact that the bar height might need to be shifted, but Joe Bikebuyer
is often much less knowledgeable...and that's who the majority of
makers are aiming at.

Quoted message said:

So, we are now faced with a horrible stem design that is lighter,
stronger, safer, more durable, and which is vulnerable to a fashionable
setup folly which can be corrected for the price of dinner for two at a
nice fast food restaurant.

If you're lucky. That has not been the case for me thus far, unless
you think Fogo de Chao is fast food.

Quoted message said:

That said, my two fancy bikes have threadless stems, but my older bikes
all have threaded stems, and I am unlikely to change them anytime soon.

This mirrors a lot of other folks.

One size does not fit all, in bikes, clothing, or solutions to
problems with either of them.

[1] Been There, Done That, Printed The T-Shirt And Sold The Movie
Rights.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.