Best roadbike for rough pave'?

[Tim McNamara]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:

> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> With this elaboration I continue to assert that mountain bike
>> inventors invented the thread-less steering mechanism we see today,
>> and that this invention has become standard equipment on the vast
>> majority of bicycles. An advance from non-racing bicycles that
>> improved _all_ bicycles.
>
> With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering
> systems are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME,
> they solve nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental
> adjustments in stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are
> primarily a benefit on the bicycle production line.

The threadless stem is an improvement in how the stem attaches to the
steerer in mechanical terms. I've got no argument with that, having
seen broken-off traditional stems where the expander cone cracked the
stem inside the steerer, and having seen cracked or bulged steerers
from an improperly inserted stem in which the bolt was cranked tight
and forced the wedge up too tightly. and we all remember having to
whack the stem into the steerer with a mallet to break it loose for
removal.

The problem for me is combining the clamping of the stem with
maintaining the preload on the headset. After you've tightened down
the stem clamp, the preload adjuster bolt does precious little if
anything. You can remove it and it makes no difference. But if you
crash or if the bike is knocked over and the stem gets twisted to one
side, you can't just twist it back without having to readjust the
preload.

The old French system of a threaded headset and the threadless stem
clamped to an extension brazed into the top of the steerer makes more
sense to me. In both cases, though, there is the ergonomic
compromise. Things happen that can make you want to adjust your stem
up or down, like a minor back injury that will get better in a week or
two but which makes the reach to the bars uncomfortable in the
meantime. It's harder to adjust the stem up 2 cm with a clamp-on
stem. In the middle of a long ride, this option can be helpful.

Like all of these issues, though, it's a personal calculus. You've
got to pick what works for you, on your bike, for the type of riding
you like to do. That's why I think it's good that there are options.

 

[G.T.]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> IIRC, the early Camelbaks targeted tri-athletes (drink while staying
> aero, etc.).

No, I believe the first Camelbak had an approx 75 oz bladder that slid into
the simple pouch that you mention and it was marketed to mountain bikers, it
wasn't very aero. Then they came up with a smaller bladder held in a zip up
aero pouch that they marketed to roadies and the tri market.

Greg

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <T4b*[email protected]>,
> > David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Michael Press <[email protected]>:
> > > >The thread-less steering tube and associated headset
> > > >bearing pre-load and the stem clamped to the outside of
> > > >the steering tube was invented by the inventors of
> > > >mountain bicycles.
> > >
> > > Rivendell Reader #36 contains a picture of a stem clamped to the outside
> > > of a steer tube. It is from a 1940s tourer. Therefore that was not
> > > invented by the inventors of mountain bikes.
> >
> > Perhaps I am unclear in my use of `invented'. Nothing is
> > new. An invention can be a system of previously existing
> > components to make something that solves a current
> > problem, or makes something better. Indexed shifting was
> > not `invented' by Shimano, except that they undertook a
> > program of smaller inventions, and putting it all together
> > into a system that turned indexed shifting from another
> > invention that went nowhere to being standard equipment on
> > almost every bicycle sold. Credit where credit is due.
> >
> > With this elaboration I continue to assert that mountain
> > bike inventors invented the thread-less steering mechanism
> > we see today, and that this invention has become standard
> > equipment on the vast majority of bicycles. An advance
> > from non-racing bicycles that improved _all_ bicycles.
> >
> >
>
> With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering systems
> are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME, they solve
> nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental adjustments in
> stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are primarily a benefit on the
> bicycle production line.

5 mm increments with spacers is a fine enough adjustment.
Yes, it takes more time to reset the height, and requires
resetting the headset bearing pre-load each time.

In a thread-less steering tube system the connection
between the bars and the steering tube is more robust and
stiffer than the expander systems with quill stems. The
expander system in quill stems is subject to corrosion
leading to `frozen' stems.

I have a quill stem on a bicycle that I ride all the time.
Have not reset the height in years. I feel my Cinelli
quill stem looks better than my TTT Mutant thread-less
stem, but I think the thread-less system is a better
system as engineering.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

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

> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >> With this elaboration I continue to assert that mountain bike
> >> inventors invented the thread-less steering mechanism we see today,
> >> and that this invention has become standard equipment on the vast
> >> majority of bicycles. An advance from non-racing bicycles that
> >> improved _all_ bicycles.
> >
> > With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering
> > systems are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME,
> > they solve nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental
> > adjustments in stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are
> > primarily a benefit on the bicycle production line.
>
> The threadless stem is an improvement in how the stem attaches to the
> steerer in mechanical terms. I've got no argument with that, having
> seen broken-off traditional stems where the expander cone cracked the
> stem inside the steerer, and having seen cracked or bulged steerers
> from an improperly inserted stem in which the bolt was cranked tight
> and forced the wedge up too tightly. and we all remember having to
> whack the stem into the steerer with a mallet to break it loose for
> removal.
>
> The problem for me is combining the clamping of the stem with
> maintaining the preload on the headset. After you've tightened down
> the stem clamp, the preload adjuster bolt does precious little if
> anything. You can remove it and it makes no difference. But if you
> crash or if the bike is knocked over and the stem gets twisted to one
> side, you can't just twist it back without having to readjust the
> preload.
>
> The old French system of a threaded headset and the threadless stem
> clamped to an extension brazed into the top of the steerer makes more
> sense to me. In both cases, though, there is the ergonomic
> compromise. Things happen that can make you want to adjust your stem
> up or down, like a minor back injury that will get better in a week or
> two but which makes the reach to the bars uncomfortable in the
> meantime. It's harder to adjust the stem up 2 cm with a clamp-on
> stem. In the middle of a long ride, this option can be helpful.

Get the allen wrench(s) out of the kit and flip the stem.
My thread-less stem has a 35 mm excursion on flipping.

>
> Like all of these issues, though, it's a personal calculus. You've
> got to pick what works for you, on your bike, for the type of riding
> you like to do. That's why I think it's good that there are options.

I agree; prefer the appearance of quill stems, but got
thread-less on the new bicycle.

--
Michael Press

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Qui si parla Campagnolo:
>Bent riders all state that uproights are uncomfortable and
>on a well fitted one, that is not the case.

As somebody who is toying with the idea of getting a 'bent, I'd suspect that the
'bent population is somewhat loaded with people who have physical peculiarities
that limit their comfort on an upright bike - no matter how good the fit.

With me, it's my butt. Perfect fit, been through a whole garage wall-full of
saddles, probably have the best compromise possible... but if I do a three-hour
ride two days in a row, my butt and plumbing are definitely getting abused.

When I have the free time (as in temporarily out of work...) I'm thinking in
terms alternating days on the upright with days on a 'bent.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > >
> > > Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on a
> > > bent?
> >
> > Actually, I know of a couple people who are seriously considering it.
> > The IHPVA recently established this as a record category:
> > <http://www.ihpva.org/>.
> >
> > > Ya know, bents have been around for a long time, They are not ever
> > > going to be mainstream. Trek made one, mass produced many, sold few,
> > > stopped production....
> >
> > The Trek R200 was over-priced, slow and had design flaws. After the
> > person primarily responsible for its development died prematurely, the
> > R200 had no champion within Trek and did not receive the attention to
> > development that Trek normally would use for a new upright bicycle.
> > Basically, Trek gave up on the R200 before the first ones were ever
> > shipped to dealers.
> >
> > > They are the bicycle version of a wheelchair. It
> > > gives somebody with a physical reason they cannot ride an upright, the
> > > ability to ride a 'bike'. But for a well fitting upright, bents answer
> > > no question, solve no problem. I rode yesterday into a headwind of
> > > about 20mph...I still have no urge to get a bent.
> >
> > So you like going slower than necessary? Do you have extra weights to
> > add for riding in the mountains?
>
> I wouldn't be any faster than I am now riding on a bent. Nobody would.

Prove it. Show us evidence relating to power production for a given
level of training and/or measurements of power input and speed for
various recumbents and upright bicycles.

If you have no reproducible quantitative evidence, you are posting
nothing but "used male bovine food".

> Bents are not 'faster', period.

Prove it.

> Riding up to jamestown would take twice
> the time to get there on a bent than on an upright.

Prove it.

> I passed a gent once going up there, on a bent and he was going 6mph, I was going 12
> mph...6 miles, 1 hour for him, 30 minutes for me.

Totally meaningless anecdote. For all we know, the "gent" had been ill
and this was his first ride of any length in 8 months. Or did you
magically record his power input?

Please don't insult us with these meaningless anecdotes. This is
rec.bicycles.tech, not rec.bicycles.opinion after all.

> > > Bents are a 'gadget' that some rave about but the majority will not
> > > buy.
> >
> > Many people give up on cycling altogether because traditional upright
> > bicycles are too uncomfortable. Regular upright riders are a biased
> > sample of the general population. If these people that found upright
> > too uncomfortable all rode recumbents, cycling in general would
> > benefit.
>
> No, if bike shops all learned how to do bike fits, something that was a
> real fit, not a ride around the parking lot-fit, then bikes would be
> more comfy. Bent riders all state that uproights are uncomfortable and
> on a well fitted one, that is not the case.

"Bent riders all state that..." - now Peter Chisholm has knowledge of
ALL recumbent riders' statements. The man is amazing!

How do we know all cases of upright discomfort are due to poor fit?
More omniscience?

Nowhere else do we find upright saddles used. However, seats similar to
those used in recumbents are near universal.

> > For every obnoxious recumbent "evangelist" out there (pace Jobst
> > Brandt) there are many upright riders who will offer gratuitous insults
> > to someone riding a recumbent.
>
> But once again, bents answer no question, solve no problem. They are on
> the fringe of cycling and always will be. The double triangle upright
> design is so simple, so efficient, so well executed, nobody is going to
> 'reinvent' it with a better design, in spite of decades of bent
> designers trying to.

Opinion noted.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

<snip>

> > With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less
steering systems
> > are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME,
they solve
> > nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental
adjustments in
> > stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are primarily a
benefit on the
> > bicycle production line.
>
> 5 mm increments with spacers is a fine enough adjustment.
> Yes, it takes more time to reset the height, and requires
> resetting the headset bearing pre-load each time.
>
> In a thread-less steering tube system the connection
> between the bars and the steering tube is more robust and
> stiffer than the expander systems with quill stems. The
> expander system in quill stems is subject to corrosion
> leading to `frozen' stems.
>
> I have a quill stem on a bicycle that I ride all the time.
> Have not reset the height in years. I feel my Cinelli
> quill stem looks better than my TTT Mutant thread-less
> stem, but I think the thread-less system is a better
> system as engineering.

Also, the old 1R Cinelli stem, for example, had a short-ish
quill. The long quill stems with lots of rise had very little
reach. The threadless stems have more rise and reach options,
so they are a better for taller riders like me. I can ride a
60cm frame (my cross bike) with the right threadless stem whereas
my usual frame size is 64cm with a 1R stem. I can live with the
pre-load issues and microadjustment issues. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

G.T. wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > IIRC, the early Camelbaks targeted tri-athletes (drink while staying
> > aero, etc.).
>
> No, I believe the first Camelbak had an approx 75 oz bladder that slid into
> the simple pouch that you mention and it was marketed to mountain bikers, it
> wasn't very aero. Then they came up with a smaller bladder held in a zip up
> aero pouch that they marketed to roadies and the tri market.
>
>

By "staying aero", I meant the idea that the rider didn't have to reach
for a water bottle, then sit up and drink. Not that the Camelbak pouch
itself was claimed to be "aero". If you recall, the were several
schemes involving water bottles with long tubes held near the
handlebar, etc., that were marketed to tri-athletes. At any rate, I was
never interested or in any way "tuned in" to the MTB scene, but I do
recall being aware of Camelbaks pretty early on. I recall the were
marketed to the MTB crowd "later".

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >> With this elaboration I continue to assert that mountain bike
> >> inventors invented the thread-less steering mechanism we see today,
> >> and that this invention has become standard equipment on the vast
> >> majority of bicycles. An advance from non-racing bicycles that
> >> improved _all_ bicycles.
> >
> > With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering
> > systems are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME,
> > they solve nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental
> > adjustments in stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are
> > primarily a benefit on the bicycle production line.
>
> The threadless stem is an improvement in how the stem attaches to the
> steerer in mechanical terms. I've got no argument with that, having
> seen broken-off traditional stems where the expander cone cracked the
> stem inside the steerer, and having seen cracked or bulged steerers
> from an improperly inserted stem in which the bolt was cranked tight
> and forced the wedge up too tightly. and we all remember having to
> whack the stem into the steerer with a mallet to break it loose for
> removal.
>

Sure, a ham-fisted approach and/or a lack of proper installation and
maintainence can ruin just about anything. IME, the problems you
describe with quill stems are rare in well cared for bicycles.


> The problem for me is combining the clamping of the stem with
> maintaining the preload on the headset. After you've tightened down
> the stem clamp, the preload adjuster bolt does precious little if
> anything. You can remove it and it makes no difference. But if you
> crash or if the bike is knocked over and the stem gets twisted to one
> side, you can't just twist it back without having to readjust the
> preload.
>

Agreed, this is a pretty big drawback to the threadless approach.



> The old French system of a threaded headset and the threadless stem
> clamped to an extension brazed into the top of the steerer makes more
> sense to me. In both cases, though, there is the ergonomic
> compromise. Things happen that can make you want to adjust your stem
> up or down, like a minor back injury that will get better in a week or
> two but which makes the reach to the bars uncomfortable in the
> meantime. It's harder to adjust the stem up 2 cm with a clamp-on
> stem. In the middle of a long ride, this option can be helpful.
>

Just making incremental adjustments to fine tune your position on a new
bike while on the road can be very handy. For the most part, threadless
designs make this trivial task a PITA (and, yes, there are exceptions).


> Like all of these issues, though, it's a personal calculus. You've
> got to pick what works for you, on your bike, for the type of riding
> you like to do. That's why I think it's good that there are options.

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering systems
> are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME, they solve
> nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental adjustments in
> stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are primarily a benefit on the
> bicycle production line.

I've never understood internet bicyclists love with the notion you can
adjust the height of quill stems. The only adjustment quill stems have
for real bicyclists who actually ride their bikes is down. The exact
opposite of the needed adjustment. In all of the years I've been
riding I've never met anyone who had their quill stem shoved down, the
only real adjustment quill stems have. They all had as much quill
showing as possible. They were set at the maximum line. The quill
stems had no adjustment for height.

I always get a laugh out of internet bicyclists who talk about setting
bars at saddle height using a quill stem. The only quill stems that
allow this kind of adjustment are the Nitto Technomic and now
discontinued Look Ergostem in quill form. No other quill stems have
more than about 2 inches of height. I have a TTT Synthesis quill stem
and it has one of the longer quills made in the past 2-3 decades, and
set at the max line the bars are 2" below the saddle. On a frame where
there is about 5" between the top tube and the underside of the Brooks
saddle. Its sized using the old method of a fistful of seatpost
showing.

Threadless forks and their stems allow for far more height adjustment
than any quill stem except the Nitto Technomic. Threadless stems come
in all lengths and angles for any height adjustment you want. And
threadless stems are cheap.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > With respect, Michael, I fail to see where thread-less steering systems
> > are "an advance...that improved _all_ bicycles". IMO/IME, they solve
> > nothing whilst depriving the rider of easy, incremental adjustments in
> > stem height. Like the cartridge BB, they are primarily a benefit on the
> > bicycle production line.
>
> I've never understood internet bicyclists love with the notion you can
> adjust the height of quill stems. The only adjustment quill stems have
> for real bicyclists who actually ride their bikes is down. The exact
> opposite of the needed adjustment. In all of the years I've been
> riding I've never met anyone who had their quill stem shoved down, the
> only real adjustment quill stems have. They all had as much quill
> showing as possible. They were set at the maximum line. The quill
> stems had no adjustment for height.
>


Where do you come up with **** like this?(1) All three of my bikes
have quill stems and *not one* is set at (or, really, near) the maximum
line. (And none of them use Technomics. Two Cinellis and one Zoom.)


(1) Now I remember! You're the guy who maintains that no one rode road
bikes prior to the introduction of brifters. ;-)



> I always get a laugh out of internet bicyclists who talk about setting
> bars at saddle height using a quill stem.


Where was that mentioned in this tread or by me, genius?



> The only quill stems that
> allow this kind of adjustment are the Nitto Technomic and now
> discontinued Look Ergostem in quill form. No other quill stems have
> more than about 2 inches of height. I have a TTT Synthesis quill stem
> and it has one of the longer quills made in the past 2-3 decades, and
> set at the max line the bars are 2" below the saddle. On a frame where
> there is about 5" between the top tube and the underside of the Brooks
> saddle. Its sized using the old method of a fistful of seatpost
> showing.
>
> Threadless forks and their stems allow for far more height adjustment
> than any quill stem except the Nitto Technomic.

True *only* if the steerer tube is left sufficiently long. And if it
is, boy does it look dorky if you lower the stem by moving the spacers
around. Not to mention all the wasted time making what should be a
trivial, routine adjustment.


> Threadless stems come
> in all lengths and angles for any height adjustment you want. And
> threadless stems are cheap.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> The threadless stem is an improvement in how the stem attaches to
>> the steerer in mechanical terms. I've got no argument with that,
>> having seen broken-off traditional stems where the expander cone
>> cracked the stem inside the steerer, and having seen cracked or
>> bulged steerers from an improperly inserted stem in which the bolt
>> was cranked tight and forced the wedge up too tightly. and we all
>> remember having to whack the stem into the steerer with a mallet to
>> break it loose for removal.
>
> Sure, a ham-fisted approach and/or a lack of proper installation and
> maintainence can ruin just about anything. IME, the problems you
> describe with quill stems are rare in well cared for bicycles.

Nice superior attitude there. By implication you are above all that.
C'est la vie. In my years working in bike shops, I saw a lot of that
stuff. It's pretty normal. Especially in the types of bikes that
normal people ride, not the multi-thousands dollar stuff many if not
moswt of us in this newsgroup ride. Even in "well cared for bikes"
water still infiltrates between the steerer and the stem, unless you
stay home when it rains.

<snip>

> Just making incremental adjustments to fine tune your position on a
> new bike while on the road can be very handy. For the most part,
> threadless designs make this trivial task a PITA (and, yes, there
> are exceptions).

As far as that goes, once you know the dimensions of your position,
it's less of an issue. I could set up a threadless bike just fine
because I've honed my position over the past few decades. But I like
the option to easily adjust things just in case.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Michael Press <[email protected]>:
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Michael Press <[email protected]>:
>>>The thread-less steering tube and associated headset
>>>bearing pre-load and the stem clamped to the outside of
>>>the steering tube was invented by the inventors of
>>>mountain bicycles.
>>Rivendell Reader #36 contains a picture of a stem clamped to the outside
>>of a steer tube. It is from a 1940s tourer. Therefore that was not
>>invented by the inventors of mountain bikes.
>Perhaps I am unclear in my use of `invented'. Nothing is
>new.

Er, no, all of these things were new once. That is when they were
invented. Quite possibly, stems which clamp to the outside of steer tubes
were invented in the 1940s.

If you want to talk about something other than inventions, work out what
it is you are talking about, and say that.

>equipment on the vast majority of bicycles. An advance
>from non-racing bicycles that improved _all_ bicycles.

Perhaps so; but the non-racing bicycles were early tourers, not mountain
bikes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Mania, February.

 

[Peter Cole]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> The problem for me is combining the clamping of the stem with
> maintaining the preload on the headset. After you've tightened down
> the stem clamp, the preload adjuster bolt does precious little if
> anything. You can remove it and it makes no difference. But if you
> crash or if the bike is knocked over and the stem gets twisted to one
> side, you can't just twist it back without having to readjust the
> preload.

You can de-couple height and preload adjustments with threadless. If you
use a locking collar just above the headset, you can loosen the stem
without changing the preload. You can do this by adding a collar below
the spacer stack. You can actually live without spacers and star-fangled
nuts if you use the "woof" method of preload (see Sheldon Brown's article).

Another trick: if you really like quill stems, insert a quill stem into
a threadless steerer. If you either go without a star-fangled nut (woof
method) or set it deep and use a long cap-screw, you can insert a quill
into the steerer.

If you cut a threadless steerer with only enough extra for a locking
collar, used a deep set star-fangled nut and a long cap-screw to set
preload and inserted a quill stem, you'd have a setup that was virtually
identical to the classic threaded steerer -- without the problematic
threading, big headset nuts, etc.

I suppose you could use a clamp-style stem with a threaded steerer if
you had enough of it sticking out of the headset, but that would really
be the worst of both worlds. Threading the steerer is just a really bad
idea.

Sheldon has set up bikes with 2 handlebars. I set up one with 2 stems,
the lower (clamp-style) to hold an "accessory bar", the upper
(quill-style) to hold the handlebars. Since both stems have removable
faceplates, I can move the handlebars to the bottom stem and remove the
top stem entirely in just a few minutes. This can change the bike from a
randonneuring to time trialing configuration. We've never had so many
cool options!

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset wrote:

>
> Opinion noted.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Lots snipped but-If you have no reproducible quantitative evidence, you
are posting
> nothing but "used male bovine food"

This is a "opinion' forum, afterall. Most of what is 'bikes IS opinion,
not hard facts. If ya like yer bent and want to beloeve it's the
salvation for all the ills of uprights, groovy, but I won't hold my
breath for 'bents to be mainstream anytime soon, and I won't own, ride,
or work on one.

BTW, for the hr record, somebody suggested I google 'bent hr record'
and all I found was something in Texas over a 'rolling' terrain in
2002 and it was 52 miles or something. Isn't the currect unrestricted
hr record 55 or something?

 

[Tim McNamara]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> The problem for me is combining the clamping of the stem with
>> maintaining the preload on the headset. After you've tightened
>> down the stem clamp, the preload adjuster bolt does precious little
>> if anything. You can remove it and it makes no difference. But if
>> you crash or if the bike is knocked over and the stem gets twisted
>> to one side, you can't just twist it back without having to
>> readjust the preload.
>
> You can de-couple height and preload adjustments with threadless. If
> you use a locking collar just above the headset, you can loosen the
> stem without changing the preload. You can do this by adding a
> collar below the spacer stack.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that. I'm envisioning one of
the clamp-on cable hangers with a pinch bolt. Is that the kind of
thing?

> You can actually live without spacers and star-fangled nuts if you
> use the "woof" method of preload (see Sheldon Brown's article).
>
> Another trick: if you really like quill stems, insert a quill stem
> into a threadless steerer. If you either go without a star-fangled nut
> (woof method) or set it deep and use a long cap-screw, you can insert
> a quill into the steerer.
>
> If you cut a threadless steerer with only enough extra for a locking
> collar, used a deep set star-fangled nut and a long cap-screw to set
> preload and inserted a quill stem, you'd have a setup that was
> virtually identical to the classic threaded steerer -- without the
> problematic threading, big headset nuts, etc.

None of which I've ever found problematic on my bikes, so frankly I
see little benefit in this today. But thanks for the tips- if
threaded headsets eventually become unavailable, I'll know what to use
as an alternative setup. It's good to preserve options.

> I suppose you could use a clamp-style stem with a threaded steerer if
> you had enough of it sticking out of the headset, but that would
> really be the worst of both worlds. Threading the steerer is just a
> really bad idea.

And yet it has worked well for what, 100 years or more?

> Sheldon has set up bikes with 2 handlebars. I set up one with 2 stems,
> the lower (clamp-style) to hold an "accessory bar", the upper
> (quill-style) to hold the handlebars. Since both stems have removable
> faceplates, I can move the handlebars to the bottom stem and remove
> the top stem entirely in just a few minutes. This can change the bike
> from a randonneuring to time trialing configuration. We've never had
> so many cool options!

Options are good, even if some of them look a little odd.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>
> >> The threadless stem is an improvement in how the stem attaches to
> >> the steerer in mechanical terms. I've got no argument with that,
> >> having seen broken-off traditional stems where the expander cone
> >> cracked the stem inside the steerer, and having seen cracked or
> >> bulged steerers from an improperly inserted stem in which the bolt
> >> was cranked tight and forced the wedge up too tightly. and we all
> >> remember having to whack the stem into the steerer with a mallet to
> >> break it loose for removal.
> >
> > Sure, a ham-fisted approach and/or a lack of proper installation and
> > maintainence can ruin just about anything. IME, the problems you
> > describe with quill stems are rare in well cared for bicycles.
>
> Nice superior attitude there.


My point is that a ham-fisted ignoramus (and cracked or bulged steerer
tubes are sure signs of ham-fisted ignorance, IMO) can ruin anything. A
threadless system can be ruined, albeit in different ways, just as
easily as a threaded system.




> By implication you are above all that.
> C'est la vie. In my years working in bike shops, I saw a lot of that
> stuff. It's pretty normal. Especially in the types of bikes that
> normal people ride, not the multi-thousands dollar stuff many if not
> moswt of us in this newsgroup ride. Even in "well cared for bikes"
> water still infiltrates between the steerer and the stem, unless you
> stay home when it rains.
>


And water will infiltrate a threadless headset as readily as a
*comparable* threaded one. Hence, routine maintanence is required more
often if you ride in the wet. The same routine maintainance which,
combined with proper installation, will obviate the problem of quill
stems becoming seized in the steerer tube.



> <snip>
>
> > Just making incremental adjustments to fine tune your position on a
> > new bike while on the road can be very handy. For the most part,
> > threadless designs make this trivial task a PITA (and, yes, there
> > are exceptions).
>
> As far as that goes, once you know the dimensions of your position,
> it's less of an issue. I could set up a threadless bike just fine
> because I've honed my position over the past few decades.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.....speaking of superior attitudes.... ;-)

IME, knowing your position will surely get you in the ballpark, but
different frames, with different geometries and dimensions, often
require on-the-road fine-tuning for best results. YCMV.



> But I like
> the option to easily adjust things just in case.

On this we agree.

And we also agree that choice is a good thing. However, I do question
the wisdom of something like threadless headsets being passed off as
"superior technology" for the consumer when, if fact, the reasons for
their existence and proliferation lie in the ease of bicycle assembly
line production.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> writes:

> BTW, for the hr record, somebody suggested I google 'bent hr record'
> and all I found was something in Texas over a 'rolling' terrain in
> 2002 and it was 52 miles or something. Isn't the currect unrestricted
> hr record 55 or something?

Maybe this is simpler?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record

As you can see, the IHPVA record record is 84.215 km set by Sam
Whittington; Chris Boardman's funny bike hour record is 56.375
followed 4 year later with 49.441 km on a standard track bike; and the
current "standard bike" hour record is 49.700 km set by Ondřej
Sosenka.

Recumbents have been a few km ahead of standard bikes in the hour
record throughout their existence. The gap has grown as fairings have
been added and then improved- from 5.4 km in 1933 to a whopping 34.5
km in 2004-2005! I have read that a standard non-faired non-lowrider
recumbent has an aerodynamic drag similar to a cyclist on a standard
bicycle. If that's the case, then some other factor must account for
the higher speeds. Biomechanics or ergonomics perhaps? I really have
no idea, maybe someone wiser than me does. I've only ridden a
recumbent around the block, so I don't have a comparison.

 

[Peter Cole]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>You can de-couple height and preload adjustments with threadless. If
>>you use a locking collar just above the headset, you can loosen the
>>stem without changing the preload. You can do this by adding a
>>collar below the spacer stack.
>
>
> Interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that. I'm envisioning one of
> the clamp-on cable hangers with a pinch bolt. Is that the kind of
> thing?

Sure, those work, any type of pinch bolt collar would.


>>If you cut a threadless steerer with only enough extra for a locking
>>collar, used a deep set star-fangled nut and a long cap-screw to set
>>preload and inserted a quill stem, you'd have a setup that was
>>virtually identical to the classic threaded steerer -- without the
>>problematic threading, big headset nuts, etc.
>
>
> None of which I've ever found problematic on my bikes, so frankly I
> see little benefit in this today. But thanks for the tips- if
> threaded headsets eventually become unavailable, I'll know what to use
> as an alternative setup. It's good to preserve options.

All I'm saying is that it's not too hard to keep the advantages you like
(quill stems) with traditional threaded setups with threadless steerers.


>>I suppose you could use a clamp-style stem with a threaded steerer if
>>you had enough of it sticking out of the headset, but that would
>>really be the worst of both worlds. Threading the steerer is just a
>>really bad idea.
>
>
> And yet it has worked well for what, 100 years or more?

Sorry, I was speaking comparatively -- it's an extra step (threading),
requires special tools and creates a weak spot, if it's unnecessary, why
do it?


> Options are good, even if some of them look a little odd.

If you cut the threadless steerer short, just enough to fit a binder
collar, and, fitted with a quill stem, it would look virtually identical
to a threaded setup (and would be at least as strong and easy to
adjust). The historical "7" shaped stem, as Sheldon points out, is an
anachronism, they can still be used with threadless if you like the look.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:

> If you cut the threadless steerer short, just enough to fit a binder
> collar, and, fitted with a quill stem, it would look virtually
> identical to a threaded setup (and would be at least as strong and
> easy to adjust). The historical "7" shaped stem, as Sheldon points
> out, is an anachronism, they can still be used with threadless if
> you like the look.

Yah. The "looking odd" part was having multiple handlebars or
multiple stems on a bike. To me that looks odd.

And call me a shameless traditionalist, but I do like the look of a
"7" shaped stem. I suppose my sense of bike aesthetics was set in the
1970s. I'm an oldish duffer!