26.4mm (old Cinelli) clamp stem

[Mark Hickey]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
>> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
>> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
>> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
>> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
>> price is just plain..well, marketing.
>
>But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many different
>sizes for similar applications.

I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
(or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 wrote:
> > Where can I find one other than fleabay? TIA.
>
> I have several (bars too).

Do you have 66/44s?


> Or are you looking for NOS?
>
> DR

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
> >> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
> >> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
> >> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
> >> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
> >> price is just plain..well, marketing.
> >
> >But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
> >then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many different
> >sizes for similar applications.
>
> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Well, of course. as I said, 31.8 did nothing, wasn't necessary in any
way One of the items on dumb bike design things, like t-less, compact,
1 1/8inch HS', carbon rear ends and plugs.....26mm would have been
fine. Why MTB 'stuff' was 25.4...well nobody knows.

 

[John Thompson]

On 2006-12-22, Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Thompson wrote:
>> On 2006-12-21, Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Cinelli 1R, the "Death Stem"! Creaking was the least of the problems.
>> >:-0
>>
>> I thought that moniker was reserved for the AVA stem:
>>
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/velos.html
>>
>>
>
>
> My reference was an allusion to the old Cinelli M71 strapless pedal,
> aka the "death cleats".

Ah, yes. The original clipless pedal. More than a few people tore the
cleats out of their shoes trying to get unclipped in a hurry.

--

John ([email protected])

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>>then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
>>different
>>sizes for similar applications.
>
> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.

Mark: It's a bit late for that. The cat's out of the bag. Right now the best
we can do is encourage mtn bikes to adopt 31.8mm across the board. And
hybrids, and whatever else we can.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
>>> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
>>> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
>>> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
>>> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
>>> price is just plain..well, marketing.
>>
>>But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>>then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
>>different
>>sizes for similar applications.
>
> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[jim beam]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>>> then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
>>> different
>>> sizes for similar applications.
>> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
>> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
>> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
>> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
>> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>
> Mark: It's a bit late for that. The cat's out of the bag. Right now the best
> we can do is encourage mtn bikes to adopt 31.8mm across the board. And
> hybrids, and whatever else we can.

indeed - consistency is good. add to that the fatigue advantages of the
bigger diameter, and we have a winner.

>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
>>>> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
>>>> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
>>>> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
>>>> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
>>>> price is just plain..well, marketing.
>>> But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>>> then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
>>> different
>>> sizes for similar applications.
>> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
>> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
>> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
>> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
>> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
>

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
> > >> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
> > >> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
> > >> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
> > >> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
> > >> price is just plain..well, marketing.
> > >
> > >But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
> > >then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many different
> > >sizes for similar applications.
> >
> > I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> > had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> > (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> > the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> > could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
> >
> > Mark Hickey
> > Habanero Cycles
> > http://www.habcycles.com
> > Home of the $795 ti frame
>
> Well, of course. as I said, 31.8 did nothing, wasn't necessary in any
> way One of the items on dumb bike design things, like t-less, compact,
> 1 1/8inch HS', carbon rear ends and plugs.....26mm would have been
> fine. Why MTB 'stuff' was 25.4...well nobody knows.

Peter: at a guess, it's a legacy from the MTB roots in Schwinn cruisers.
Were they originally 25.4mm as well?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> > > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
> > > >> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
> > > >> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
> > > >> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
> > > >> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
> > > >> price is just plain..well, marketing.
> > > >
> > > >But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
> > > >then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many different
> > > >sizes for similar applications.
> > >
> > > I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> > > had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> > > (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> > > the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> > > could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
> > >
> > > Mark Hickey
> > > Habanero Cycles
> > > http://www.habcycles.com
> > > Home of the $795 ti frame
> >
> > Well, of course. as I said, 31.8 did nothing, wasn't necessary in any
> > way One of the items on dumb bike design things, like t-less, compact,
> > 1 1/8inch HS', carbon rear ends and plugs.....26mm would have been
> > fine. Why MTB 'stuff' was 25.4...well nobody knows.
>
> Peter: at a guess, it's a legacy from the MTB roots in Schwinn cruisers.
> Were they originally 25.4mm as well?
>
> --
Donno..but .833 stem quills, that certainly went away...but 25.4 for
road would work also...no need for anything else really.

 

[Mark Hickey]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>>>> then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
>>>> different
>>>> sizes for similar applications.
>>> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
>>> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
>>> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
>>> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
>>> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>>
>> Mark: It's a bit late for that. The cat's out of the bag. Right now the best
>> we can do is encourage mtn bikes to adopt 31.8mm across the board. And
>> hybrids, and whatever else we can.
>
>indeed - consistency is good.

This is a conundrum or an oxymoron - hard to say. Q: How do we make
everything the same? A: Change it all.

> add to that the fatigue advantages of the
>bigger diameter, and we have a winner.

Given the fact that fatigue failures are still very rare, and that it
remains to be seen whether the additional steps necessary to produce
that (big, ugly) bulge in the bars will cause NEW opportunities for
failure, I'd suggest that this is an "improvement" that isn't.

I'd also suggest that you could add the extra weight necessary for the
bulge and the larger stem clamp (and associated fattening of the
stem's extension) to "normal size bars" and end up with a stronger,
and certainly more attractive component.

My guess is that we're going to see more failures due to people having
to "crowd" bolt-ons (like lights or computers or aerobars) onto the
butt of the flared part, causing a crimp that ends up in a failure in
the "new improved bars".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[* * Chas]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm
size,
> >>>> then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
> >>>> different
> >>>> sizes for similar applications.
> >>> I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been
better
> >>> had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on
26.0mm
> >>> (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't
have
> >>> the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> >>> could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
> >>
> >> Mark: It's a bit late for that. The cat's out of the bag. Right now
the best
> >> we can do is encourage mtn bikes to adopt 31.8mm across the board.
And
> >> hybrids, and whatever else we can.
> >
> >indeed - consistency is good.
>
> This is a conundrum or an oxymoron - hard to say. Q: How do we make
> everything the same? A: Change it all.
>
> > add to that the fatigue advantages of the
> >bigger diameter, and we have a winner.
>
> Given the fact that fatigue failures are still very rare, and that it
> remains to be seen whether the additional steps necessary to produce
> that (big, ugly) bulge in the bars will cause NEW opportunities for
> failure, I'd suggest that this is an "improvement" that isn't.
>
> I'd also suggest that you could add the extra weight necessary for the
> bulge and the larger stem clamp (and associated fattening of the
> stem's extension) to "normal size bars" and end up with a stronger,
> and certainly more attractive component.
>
> My guess is that we're going to see more failures due to people having
> to "crowd" bolt-ons (like lights or computers or aerobars) onto the
> butt of the flared part, causing a crimp that ends up in a failure in
> the "new improved bars".
>
> Mark Hickey

Plus dings and scratches that can cause failure in Carbon Fiber Composite
bars.

Chas.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:06:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
>> > >> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
>> > >> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
>> > >> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
>> > >> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to the
>> > >> price is just plain..well, marketing.
>> > >
>> > >But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm size,
>> > >then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many different
>> > >sizes for similar applications.
>> >
>> > I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
>> > had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
>> > (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
>> > the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
>> > could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
>> >
>> > Mark Hickey
>> > Habanero Cycles
>> > http://www.habcycles.com
>> > Home of the $795 ti frame
>>
>> Well, of course. as I said, 31.8 did nothing, wasn't necessary in any
>> way One of the items on dumb bike design things, like t-less, compact,
>> 1 1/8inch HS', carbon rear ends and plugs.....26mm would have been
>> fine. Why MTB 'stuff' was 25.4...well nobody knows.
>
>Peter: at a guess, it's a legacy from the MTB roots in Schwinn cruisers.
>Were they originally 25.4mm as well?

Dear Ryan & Peter,

At another guess, there are rumors of an ancient measuring system,
still popular in the New World, in which the basic small length unit
is a little more than two dozen millimeters long (roughly 25.400000
mm).

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:06:42 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> 'Tis the season..granted just everyday stems and handlebars work way
> >> > >> better, look worse but at the fringes you see 31.8, stoopid pight,
> >> > >> exotic, not necceasry materials...all in the name of....MARKETING...a
> >> > >> carbon or magnesium stem, carbon handlebar, that give the bike no
> >> > >> performance gain, save ohhh so little weight but add $600-$1000 to
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> price is just plain..well, marketing.
> >> > >
> >> > >But, if road, mtn & cross stems all ended up settling on the 31.8mm
> >> > >size,
> >> > >then in my opinion, it would be worthwhile. Silly to have so many
> >> > >different
> >> > >sizes for similar applications.
> >> >
> >> > I'd take it a step further and suggest that it would have been better
> >> > had the 31.8mm size never existed, and the industry settled on 26.0mm
> >> > (or even 25.4mm) as a standard. At least that way, you wouldn't have
> >> > the unnecessary weight associated with that big ugly bulge, and you
> >> > could mount a computer or headlight where it belongs.
> >> >
> >> > Mark Hickey
> >> > Habanero Cycles
> >> > http://www.habcycles.com
> >> > Home of the $795 ti frame
> >>
> >> Well, of course. as I said, 31.8 did nothing, wasn't necessary in any
> >> way One of the items on dumb bike design things, like t-less, compact,
> >> 1 1/8inch HS', carbon rear ends and plugs.....26mm would have been
> >> fine. Why MTB 'stuff' was 25.4...well nobody knows.
> >
> >Peter: at a guess, it's a legacy from the MTB roots in Schwinn cruisers.
> >Were they originally 25.4mm as well?
>
> Dear Ryan & Peter,
>
> At another guess, there are rumors of an ancient measuring system,
> still popular in the New World, in which the basic small length unit
> is a little more than two dozen millimeters long (roughly 25.400000
> mm).

I thought about making that explicit, Carl, but assumed that it was too
obvious to note. It was part of the reason for my Schwinn-cruiser guess,
though.

Born and raised in an SI country, but I give my height in feet and
inches,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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