PDA

View Full Version : Threaded versus threadless headset


Hjalmar Duklęt
August 20th 03, 11:42 AM
Hi,
What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in any
way going from threaded to threadless?
Hjalmar

Qui si parla Campagnolo
August 20th 03, 01:13 PM
hjalmar-<< What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned
threaded
one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in any
way going from threaded to threadless? >><BR><BR>

The advantage goes to the fork makers on this one. They save $(not passed on to
you, BTW) by making forks with only one steerer length versus threaded that
came in many.

Threadless does not offer any performance or strength advantages or a well made
threaded setup. However, as the bike industry merrily rolls along doing things
that may save $, masking it in 'performance enhancing' marketing drivel,
threaded forks are becoming scarce indeed.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Bike Camano
August 20th 03, 01:40 PM
I like threaded stems for a few reasons. There is more adjustability *
without* changing stems or stacking spacer washers on top of the stem. They
look better (IMO). They don't have clamp bolts on the back of the stem.
Because they are out of style they can be had rather inexpensively...

Most of my bikes have threadless though. They are generally easier to change
stems and do maintenance on the headsets.

Maurice

M Gagnon
August 20th 03, 04:59 PM
"Hjalmar Duklęt" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Hi,
> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in
any
> way going from threaded to threadless?
> Hjalmar
>
>

No difference at all as far as riding is concerned. Differences are in
construction, cost, flexibility and durability.

- With threadless headset, the manufacturer may manufacture a very long for
and cut or (or have it cut by the LBS) to the required length. Less
inventory.

- Threaded is nicer. Highly subjective, but it's more gracious on a nice
road or touring bike.

- Threadless headset is less adjustable. With threaded, one may slide in and
out the quill to raise handlebars; with threadless, you need to move spacers
around (not as nice) or use an adjustable quill, which also change the
reach.

- In theory, threadless is lighter. But if you get a stem with any kind of
adjustability, you forego any weight gain.

- Threadless is easier to fix on the road as you don't need to carry a
cumbersome headset tool.

- With threadless, there is one less joint to crack. So if you hear
handlebar noise, it's easier to find.

- A threadless headset is stronger, but I think it's much more due to the
fact typical threadless is 1 1/8" whereas threaded is 1" in nominal
diametre. The added strength is more important for off-road riding than
on-road riding. Threaded headsets worked for many years on road and touring
without problems, however.

Michel

Fabrizio Mazzoleni
August 20th 03, 05:41 PM
David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
>>
>With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),

Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone
riding with those old things, these days
everyone ride threadless.

And if you do see guys with quill stems on the
next ride then find another group to ride with,
because they are the 'B' group. Those are
probably the same lamers that are running
conventional 32 spoke wheels. Not the types
you want to been seen with!

Paul Southworth
August 20th 03, 05:45 PM
In article >,
Hjalmar Duklęt > wrote:
>What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
>one?

* Lighter weight
* Some types of forks easier to find threadless
* Headset can be adjusted with an allen wrench on the road

Disadvantages -

* Some sucky threadless headsets defy proper adjustment
* If you take the stem off you have to readjust the headset

> Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter?

The threadless one is usually lighter.

Threadless can be stiffer, although the stiffness difference is
irrelevant to most riders. And if you replace a steel fork with a
carbon one as part of the change, you will lose more stiffness than
you'll gain.

> Would it improve my riding in any
>way going from threaded to threadless?

The weight reduction is the only appreciable benefit, and you
will find it does not affect your speed by much. But if tinkering
with your bike makes you happy, it may improve your riding.

--Paul

ajames54
August 20th 03, 05:49 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:41:24 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni"
> wrote:

>
>David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
>>>
>>With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
>
>Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone
>riding with those old things, these days
>everyone ride threadless.
>
>And if you do see guys with quill stems on the
>next ride then find another group to ride with,
>because they are the 'B' group. Those are
>probably the same lamers that are running
>conventional 32 spoke wheels. Not the types
>you want to been seen with!
>
>
Is my irony meter is broken? I get mixed readings on this one...

Paul Southworth
August 20th 03, 06:01 PM
In article >,
David L. Johnson > wrote:
>Very few new bikes have a
>spacer on top of the stem, so adjusting the bars upward is only possible
>if flipping the stem over raises the position.

Or if you use a steer tube extender. Which works fine and costs
little but is admittedly hideous. But it's nicer than a quill stem in
the sense that you can add rise to any threadless stem, a lot cheaper
and easier than you can find a replacement quill stem with more rise.
If what you want is proper fit, it works fine.

In the case of someone doing a fresh conversion to threadless however,
this really isn't an issue - just buy the right fork.

--Paul

Peter Cole
August 20th 03, 07:30 PM
"Hjalmar Duklęt" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in any
> way going from threaded to threadless?

The single big advantage of threadless is that they don't corrode themselves
stuck like quill stems (and seat posts).

Werehatrack
August 20th 03, 07:31 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
> may have said:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:59:04 +0000, Richard Ney wrote:
>
>> Hjalmar Duklęt writes:
>>
>>> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned
>>> threaded one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my
>>> riding in any way going from threaded to threadless?
>>
>> There's no movement in the threadless steerer-stem connection, as there is
>> in a stem using a wedge.
>> The threadless stem clamps directly to the steerer.
>
>Along with lots of other imaginary advantages. Would it improve your
>riding? No. Is there movement between the stem and steerer tube in
>threaded fork? If you grab the front wheel and twist the bars, maybe, but
>you do not twist the bars like that when riding. Remember, you can
>control your bike riding no hands, so the amount of stress your stem will
>be under in turning the bike is very, very small. Most stress on any stem
>is just from you resting part of your weight on the bars.

As one who has yanked the quill entirely out of the tube, I can tell
you that this is a dangerous assumption to make. Riders can and will
*pull* on the bars when pedalling hard. Sometimes hard *vertically*.
This remains true whether it's advisable and safe or not. This would
seem to mitigate in favor of the threadless design; the attachment
method is probably stronger, but as you note, the reality is that
threadless fork setups can be a pain to get matched to a rider.

And, unfortunately, at present, threading the tube is stinking
expensive.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Rick Onanian
August 20th 03, 08:39 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400, David L. Johnson
> wrote:
> again, every time you mess around with the stem, you have to re-adjust
> the bearings.

Care to elaborate? I've adjusted and changes stems
on my threadless-stem road bike a few times, and if
I missed something important, I'd like to know...

Which bearings, and what type of adjustment?

--
Rick Onanian

Bob M
August 20th 03, 09:14 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:39:02 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400, David L. Johnson
> > wrote:
>> again, every time you mess around with the stem, you have to re-adjust
>> the bearings.
>
> Care to elaborate? I've adjusted and changes stems
> on my threadless-stem road bike a few times, and if
> I missed something important, I'd like to know...
>
> Which bearings, and what type of adjustment?
>

Basically, you tighten the bolt on the cap until you feel no play in the
headset (which can be done by grabbing the front brakes and pushing the
bike forward). That's the adjustment. On a threaded headset, it's the
same adjustment, only you tighten large nuts that go around the steerer
tube.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

David L. Johnson
August 20th 03, 09:28 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:14:14 +0000, Bob M wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:39:02 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400, David L. Johnson
>> > wrote:
>>> again, every time you mess around with the stem, you have to re-adjust
>>> the bearings.
>>
>> Care to elaborate? I've adjusted and changes stems on my threadless-stem
>> road bike a few times, and if I missed something important, I'd like to
>> know...
>>
>> Which bearings, and what type of adjustment?
>>
>>
> Basically, you tighten the bolt on the cap until you feel no play in the
> headset (which can be done by grabbing the front brakes and pushing the
> bike forward). That's the adjustment. On a threaded headset, it's the
> same adjustment, only you tighten large nuts that go around the steerer
> tube.

But you only do the adjustment on a threaded headset once. For
threadless, you have to re-do each time you change anything about the
stem. When you remove the stem of a threadless headset, the whole headset
assembly is loose.

Yes, it's simple enough to re-adjust, though I do not like the idea of
trying to adjust the preload if the bearings are not clean and well-lubed.

We have all heard about people who couldn't adjust the preload on their
hubs; I see no reason to presume they could adjust the preload on a
headset, either. For them, raising the bar height means a trip to the
mechanic.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |

Kyle Brooks
August 20th 03, 09:35 PM
Everyone is riding threadless??
And those that do ride with quill stems are the "lamers" in the "B" group
with 32 spoke wheels??

I own 7 bikes, including racing, touring, and track. Not one of them takes a
threadless headset.

In our local cycling haven, where on any given ride I encounter dozens of
cyclists every day, including several clubs and a couple racing teams, I
have never been dropped by another rider or group. Except once, and that guy
who dropped me did it on a lugged steel mid 80's Pinarello with a quill stem
and 32 spoke wheels.

On the other hand, I frequently will come upon riders with the latest carbon
fiber or titanium and aero wheeled wizardry, catch them, pass them, and drop
them. Sometimes they'll try to hang on for a while, but then drop back
wheezing for air when we hit the hills. If they aren't that good of a rider,
the bike isn't helping them. "It's not the bike -- it's the rider" is a
tired cliche -- but it's true nonetheless.

Anybody who thinks that a threadless headset can make them faster needs a
reality check.

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
>
> Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone
> riding with those old things, these days
> everyone ride threadless.
>
> And if you do see guys with quill stems on the
> next ride then find another group to ride with,
> because they are the 'B' group. Those are
> probably the same lamers that are running
> conventional 32 spoke wheels. Not the types
> you want to been seen with!
>
>
>

Mike S.
August 20th 03, 09:50 PM
"Kyle Brooks" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Everyone is riding threadless??
> And those that do ride with quill stems are the "lamers" in the "B" group
> with 32 spoke wheels??
>
> I own 7 bikes, including racing, touring, and track. Not one of them takes
a
> threadless headset.
>
> In our local cycling haven, where on any given ride I encounter dozens of
> cyclists every day, including several clubs and a couple racing teams, I
> have never been dropped by another rider or group. Except once, and that
guy
> who dropped me did it on a lugged steel mid 80's Pinarello with a quill
stem
> and 32 spoke wheels.
>
> On the other hand, I frequently will come upon riders with the latest
carbon
> fiber or titanium and aero wheeled wizardry, catch them, pass them, and
drop
> them. Sometimes they'll try to hang on for a while, but then drop back
> wheezing for air when we hit the hills. If they aren't that good of a
rider,
> the bike isn't helping them. "It's not the bike -- it's the rider" is a
> tired cliche -- but it's true nonetheless.


EVERYbody knows that it isn't the guys on the fancy new bikes ya gotta watch
out for, its the guys on the beat up POS bikes that'll kick your arse! They
actually RIDE their bikes! (not do what I do and hang them in the garage and
clean off imaginary dirt.)

Mike


>
> Anybody who thinks that a threadless headset can make them faster needs a
> reality check.
>

Of course it'll make you faster. Why else would you buy one?

Riding faster is just about as much mental as it is physical.

Mike

August 20th 03, 09:53 PM
"Threadless headset" is a lame name for an improvement that had such a
long time to market. The quill stem, aka, the creaking, wobbling,
permanently stuck stem, was always a weak part on the bicycle that has
been relieved of duty by this innovation. The main feature is not the
headset with its lack of threads, but the stem and its solid reliable
and removable attachment to the steer tube. However, the head bearing
can be adjusted in a trifle, without two ungainly 8-point end
wrenches. The whole job can be done with an Allen wrench. Besides
that, for the weight weenies, it's lighter.

For safety and reliability, get a stem that has two screws on the
steer tube end and four on the front plate so that a one screw failure
will not let the handlebar go free.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Bob M
August 20th 03, 09:59 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:57:45 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:14:14 GMT, Bob M > wrote:
>>> Which bearings, and what type of adjustment?
>>
>> Basically, you tighten the bolt on the cap until you feel no play in the
>> headset (which can be done by grabbing the front brakes and pushing the
>> bike forward). That's the adjustment. On a threaded headset, it's the
>
> The bolt in the cap is functional beyond holding
> the cap on?
>
> Okay, well, I bolted the cap pretty tight anyway,
> and haven't noticed any play. I'll check
> sometime soon.
>

Once the cap is used to tighten the headset and the stem is tightened, then
you can remove the cap, as it serves no purpose. I wouldn't remove the
cap, as I'd lose it, but you can.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

Rick Onanian
August 20th 03, 10:04 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:50:02 -0700, Mike S. <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
> Riding faster is just about as much mental as it is physical.

I'd say significantly more.

That's why an exciting bike with aero-this and
carbon fiber that and high tech something else
is better; you _want_ to ride it, and are rewarded
for riding it more by getting in better shape...for
an overall effect of faster speed.

People not excited by bright colors and gimmickry
are the guys on an old, beat up mountain bike with
a milk crate (complete with dog) and flat pedals
with work boots who fly past the rest of us without
breathing hard. They also tend to be wearing jeans
and a dress shirt.

Okay, I haven't actually seen such a person, but I
recall a post here by somebody claiming to be such
a person. ;)

> Mike
--
Rick Onanian

Gary Young
August 20th 03, 10:06 PM
"Hjalmar Duklęt" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in any
> way going from threaded to threadless?
> Hjalmar

As Peter Cole mentioned, a threadless stem won't get corroded stuck.
If you've never had a threaded stem get stuck because of sweat
dripping into the gap, then that advantage probably won't mean much to
you.

A drawback to the threaded design that hasn't been mentioned is that
you can break the steerer if you're not careful in getting the wedge
below the threaded area.

Rick Onanian
August 20th 03, 10:25 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:28:41 -0400, David L. Johnson
> wrote:
> Yes, it's simple enough to re-adjust, though I do not like the idea of
> trying to adjust the preload if the bearings are not clean and well-
> lubed.

Okay, now I'm a bit afraid again. I've never heard
of the term "preload" applied to anything other
than suspension.

What is "preload" in this context, and how should I
check / adjust it?

Like I said, I've changed stems a couple times on
my threadless road bike, and haven't noticed any
looseness or maladjustment from it...and have had
my longest and fastest ride ever just a few days
ago.

--
Rick Onanian

Bob M
August 20th 03, 10:32 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:25:49 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:28:41 -0400, David L. Johnson
> > wrote:
>> Yes, it's simple enough to re-adjust, though I do not like the idea of
>> trying to adjust the preload if the bearings are not clean and well-
>> lubed.
>
> Okay, now I'm a bit afraid again. I've never heard
> of the term "preload" applied to anything other
> than suspension.
>
> What is "preload" in this context, and how should I
> check / adjust it?
>
> Like I said, I've changed stems a couple times on
> my threadless road bike, and haven't noticed any
> looseness or maladjustment from it...and have had
> my longest and fastest ride ever just a few days
> ago.
>

Preload, I think, is just the "load" put on the bearings when you tighten
the bolt in the cap. If you want to know for sure what's going on, take
apart your bike. It's easy to do and will show you how everything works.
I built my mountain bike from the ground up (ordered the frame, the parts,
the wheels, etc.). It's not hard to do.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

Rick Onanian
August 20th 03, 10:43 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:32:17 GMT, Bob M > wrote:
> Preload, I think, is just the "load" put on the bearings when you tighten

Good. I tightened it nicely every time.

> the bolt in the cap. If you want to know for sure what's going on, take
> apart your bike. It's easy to do and will show you how everything works.

I have quite the collection of beaters I can experiment
on, lately. I should do that. Heck, I even have a birthday
coming up; maybe I'll ask for a tool kit.

> I built my mountain bike from the ground up (ordered the frame, the
> parts, the wheels, etc.). It's not hard to do.

I'd like to do that sometime...I just lack the money.

--
Rick Onanian

Chalo
August 20th 03, 10:51 PM
"Hjalmar Duklęt" > wrote:

> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter?

Threadless systems are significantly stiffer, sometimes lighter, and
less likely to suffer structural failure than quill stem systems, for
any given materials and tolerances. This is primarily due to the
categorical superiority of an external binder clamp vs. an internal
expander wedge, but also due to the weakening effect of steerer
threads.

The other advantage of threadless headset systems is that the steerer
tube wall thickness is not dictated by the assembly, allowing the use
of materials besides steel (or the use of different thicknesses of
steel).

There is a cost benefit of threadless forks to manufacturers and
distributors, because all sizes of frames may be accommodated with a
single type of fork. Note however that the cheapest mass-market
bikes, which were only ever offered in one size, have retained quill
stems and threaded headsets.

> Would it improve my riding in any
> way going from threaded to threadless?

Not noticeably. If your bike is already set up, there is no
compelling reason to swap systems unless you must replace your fork.

Chalo Colina

BaCardi
August 20th 03, 10:53 PM
To the guy that claimed he ripped a quill stem out of a head tube. This
just seems hihgly unlikely and probably you never had the stem bolt
tightened in there to begin with. They've raced 100 years of the Tour de
France on quill stems with the strongest sprinters of the time and never
once has a quill stem come close to being pulled out of a head tube.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Rick Warner
August 20th 03, 11:21 PM
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in message >...
> David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
>
> And if you do see guys with quill stems on the
> next ride then find another group to ride with,
> because they are the 'B' group. Those are
> probably the same lamers that are running
> conventional 32 spoke wheels. Not the types
> you want to been seen with!

Not at all; my wheels are either 36H, or 40H, 3X and tied and soldered ;-)
It all fits perfectly well with my quill stem, Brooks saddle, and sandals
as my footware :-)

- rick

Richard Ney
August 20th 03, 11:33 PM
writes:

> "Threadless headset" is a lame name for an improvement that had such a
> long time to market. The quill stem, aka, the creaking, wobbling,
> permanently stuck stem, was always a weak part on the bicycle that has
> been relieved of duty by this innovation. The main feature is not the
> headset with its lack of threads, but the stem and its solid reliable
> and removable attachment to the steer tube. However, the head bearing
> can be adjusted in a trifle, without two ungainly 8-point end
> wrenches. The whole job can be done with an Allen wrench. Besides
> that, for the weight weenies, it's lighter.
>
> For safety and reliability, get a stem that has two screws on the
> steer tube end and four on the front plate so that a one screw failure
> will not let the handlebar go free.

I recently put a Ritchey WCS stem on my bike.
That stem is only one I know of with the 4-bolt/2-bolt design you
describe.

DiabloScott
August 21st 03, 12:03 AM
If you ever pack your bike in a box or a bike suitcase for travel,
usually you have to turn the handlebars sideways. With a quill stem you
loosen the expander wedge, drop the stem and twist; then reverse the
process to unpack. With threadless you loosen the stem clamp and twist
the stem on the steerer but you have to readjust the pre-load when you
unpack; a minor difference. EXCEPT with my Klein's internal headset the
bearings are bonded to the inside of the head tube and the fork is
bonded to the bearing cartridges so there is no pre-load adjustment; in
fact the spacers are just cosmetic and there is no top cap at all -
just a rubber plug. They changed this in 2002 to go with the
star-fangled nut design.



--
Check out my bike blog!

http://diabloscott.blogspot.com

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Werehatrack
August 21st 03, 04:31 AM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:52:23 -0400, Rick Onanian >
may have said:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:31:12 GMT, Werehatrack >
>wrote:
>> As one who has yanked the quill entirely out of the tube, I can tell
>> you that this is a dangerous assumption to make. Riders can and will
>> *pull* on the bars when pedalling hard. Sometimes hard *vertically*.
>> This remains true whether it's advisable and safe or not. This would
>> seem to mitigate in favor of the threadless design; the attachment
>> method is probably stronger, but as you note, the reality is that
>
>Stronger or not, the threadless may give more
>warning. You may notice that it's working it's
>way off the steerer earlier than you would notice
>a threadless working it's way out of the head.
>
>I don't know. I've never had either one happen.

I'd think a threadless would have to get detectably sloppy before it
would work its way up much, but I've had a threaded quill (of
admittedly low-end design) that was able to work up in the tube past
the min insert line with time, even though it still seemed to be
tight. The Ritchey in one of my other bikes gets more strain and
never budges so much as a millimeter, though, so it's obviously
possible to make a threaded quill that will resist my abuse.

That said, threaded still seems to make more sense to me. Maybe I'm
just a reactionary, but I just can't see that there's any important
advantage *for me* in the threadless setups. That might change
someday, but it will probably be a while.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Hjalmar Duklęt
August 21st 03, 07:56 AM
"Hjalmar Duklęt" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in
any
> way going from threaded to threadless?
> Hjalmar
>
>

Many thanks to all who have made their comments on my issue. My conclusion
is that I really don't need to swap fork/stem on my Trek 5500. I don't have
problems riding with other riders because of this obsolete setup, I like to
be able to change the hight of the bar without to much fuss, I also
regularly check that the stem is not stuck in the steerer (after having to
use a hacksaw to get the stem out of another bike/fork) and it probably will
not improve my sprint due to its better rigidness. Finally, I'll save a lot
of money.
Hjalmar

Dick Durbin
August 21st 03, 12:25 PM
wrote in message >...
> I don't see that happening more than once or twice a year... every 5000
> miles.

Most excellent drive-by gloat.

Dick Durbin

Steven M. Scharf
August 21st 03, 01:54 PM
Threaded is better because the height it is adjustable.

The threadless is cheaper to manufacture. Like many
"advancements," i.e. the elimination of lugs, the move
to aluminum from chromolloy steel on the cheaper bikes,
these changes are marketed as improvements when they
are really not.

I remember the first bike I got with a threadless headset
and I guess I hadn't kept up with the times because I was
confused as to the assembly (this was a specialty high end
folding bike not sold in stores and it was bought on-line and
required assembly). I just couldn't believe that they'd eliminate
the easy adjustability, and I thought I was missing some parts.

"Hjalmar Duklęt" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
> What's the advantage of a threadless headset over an oldfashioned threaded
> one? Is the threaded one stiffer/lighter? Would it improve my riding in
any
> way going from threaded to threadless?
> Hjalmar
>
>

Gary Young
August 21st 03, 03:12 PM
"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:14:14 +0000, Bob M wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:39:02 -0400, Rick Onanian > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400, David L. Johnson
> >> > wrote:
> >>> again, every time you mess around with the stem, you have to re-adjust
> >>> the bearings.
> >>
> >> Care to elaborate? I've adjusted and changes stems on my threadless-stem
> >> road bike a few times, and if I missed something important, I'd like to
> >> know...
> >>
> >> Which bearings, and what type of adjustment?
> >>
> >>
> > Basically, you tighten the bolt on the cap until you feel no play in the
> > headset (which can be done by grabbing the front brakes and pushing the
> > bike forward). That's the adjustment. On a threaded headset, it's the
> > same adjustment, only you tighten large nuts that go around the steerer
> > tube.
>
> But you only do the adjustment on a threaded headset once. For
> threadless, you have to re-do each time you change anything about the
> stem. When you remove the stem of a threadless headset, the whole headset
> assembly is loose.
>
> Yes, it's simple enough to re-adjust, though I do not like the idea of
> trying to adjust the preload if the bearings are not clean and well-lubed.
>
> We have all heard about people who couldn't adjust the preload on their
> hubs; I see no reason to presume they could adjust the preload on a
> headset, either. For them, raising the bar height means a trip to the
> mechanic.

I guess I don't see this as a significant drawback to the threadless
design. Isn't there an easy workaround? Can't you just use a thin
clamp to hold the preload, and then move the spacers and stem around
as much as you like?

Sam Huffman
August 21st 03, 04:21 PM
Werehatrack > writes:

> On 21 Aug 2003 13:21:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> > may have said:
>
> >The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply to
> >very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is not just
> >a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow manage to sweat a lot
> >onto the headset, sticking the quill in place [1].
>
> I'm not sure I want to know what's going on atop a bike that's
> accumulating sweat on the stem. *Really* I don't.

Perhaps using the bike on a trainer?

Sam

(Pete Cresswell)
August 21st 03, 06:32 PM
RE/
>Not many riders have 32mm HS wrenches but a lot of them have 5mm allens

I wonder if anybody in the industry ever thought of trying to standardize bike
parts for, say, 3 sizes of Allen key...i.e. no hex nuts, no Torx nuts, no
Phillips heads....just one of 3 Allen key sizes?
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

Peter Cole
August 21st 03, 06:45 PM
"David Damerell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have a threaded fork with a Nitto quill stem - to get the same bar
> position with a threadless headset would demand a very unusually shaped
> stem.

Sounds like the one I broke (fatigue failure). After that, to replace, I had
to hacksaw the corroded quill out.


> The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply to
> very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is not just
> a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow manage to sweat a lot
> onto the headset, sticking the quill in place [1].
>
> [1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually at least
> somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind will blow droplets of
> sweat to the rear. When I sweat enough that it cannot evaporate it hits
> me on the knees, not on the headset!

I think most corrosion problems come from riding in the rain.

Peter Cole
August 21st 03, 06:46 PM
"BaCardi" > wrote in message
...
> Steven M. Schar wrote:
> > The threadless is cheaper to manufacture. Like many "advancements," i.e.
> > the elimination of lugs, the move to aluminum from chromolloy steel on
> > the cheaper bikes, these changes are marketed as improvements when they
> > are really not.
>
>
>
>
> Whoa! Hold on one second there. GOing from lugs to TIG results in
> lighter weight and a stronger weld.

So does aluminum (lighter weight).

Eric St. Mary
August 21st 03, 07:02 PM
Fabrizio Mazzol wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
> Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone riding with those old
> things, these days everyone ride threadless.
> And if you do see guys with quill stems on the next ride then find
> another group to ride with, because they are the 'B' group. Those are
> probably the same lamers that are running conventional 32 spoke wheels.
> Not the types you want to been seen with!



Wow Fabrizio!Wow Fabrizio! You are iggnorant, a poser, and a jackass all
in one. An amazing combo.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Eric St. Mary
August 21st 03, 07:02 PM
Fabrizio Mazzol wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
> Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone riding with those old
> things, these days everyone ride threadless.
> And if you do see guys with quill stems on the next ride then find
> another group to ride with, because they are the 'B' group. Those are
> probably the same lamers that are running conventional 32 spoke wheels.
> Not the types you want to been seen with!



Wow Fabrizio!Wow Fabrizio! You are iggnorant, a poser, and a jackass all
in one. An amazing combo.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

August 21st 03, 07:50 PM
Bob Hunt writes:

>>> But you only do the adjustment on a threaded headset once. For
>>> threadless, you have to re-do each time you change anything about
>>> the stem. When you remove the stem of a threadless headset, the
>>> whole headset assembly is loose.

>> I think you are overlooking the simplicity of this adjustment. You
>> can do it while sensing whether the bearing adjustment is correct,
>> unlike futzing with two large end wrenches on a guess and then
>> finding out it was off a bit (too tight or too loose). You can
>> bounce the front wheel while you adjust the Allen screw and hear
>> bearing rattle go away. Then you snug up the stem ad its done.

>>> Yes, it's simple enough to re-adjust, though I do not like the
>>> idea of trying to adjust the preload if the bearings are not clean
>>> and well-lubed.

>> Excuses won't get you no place! Dirt does not interfere with
>> Bearing adjustment unless it's so bad you should take it apart and
>> clean it.

>>> We have all heard about people who couldn't adjust the preload on
>>> their hubs; I see no reason to presume they could adjust the
>>> preload on a headset, either. For them, raising the bar height
>>> means a trip to the mechanic.

>> What I don't understand is why you want to take your stem off all
>> the time. I only do that to clean and lubricate the head bearings.
>> I don't see that happening more than once or twice a year... every
>> 5000 miles.

> The flip side of this is if you only do that adjustment once or
> twice a year, what's the big deal about ease of adjustment?

Read the message. This was in response to the first paragraph above.
Your line of logic works for responses to invalid complaints on all
sides of the issue. Somewhere, the lines must cross.

> To paraphrase the OP's question: "Is the design so much better that
> it's worth the money, time, and trouble to switch from threaded to
> threadless?". Both systems have advantages and disadvantages but
> neither has such an overwhelming advantage over the other that an
> otherwise unnecessary- no broken parts, etc- switch is worth it.

That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance and
safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems with
quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a 0.975 dia
aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular stem.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Preston Crawford
August 21st 03, 10:14 PM
"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> There is one, and only one, advantage to a threadless headset. Dealers
> only have to sell one size fork. There are many disadvantages: little to
> no bar height adjustment possible without replacing the stem, having to
> re-set the bearing adjustment any time the stem is replaced in order to
> try to improve bar height. Ugliness.
>
> The bar height problem is IMO a real one. Many new bikes are set up to
> look like what the pros ride. So people buy them, only to realize that

This is SO true. You should contact my friends at my LBS (Bike Gallery in
Portland, Oregon) and ask them what they did to my bike. Wanting a road bike
I bought a Trek 1000, before thinking about the fit and the threadless
issue. Well, needless to say once they fit me it was a disaster. I needed
the threadless stem raised about a half a foot! They came up with an
innovative solution where they managed to attach a threaded stem to the fork
by going down into the fork somehow. It's awesome. Works great. Not sure
EXACTLY what they did, but I love it. It's so well done I can foresee myself
keeping this bike for a long time and replacing parts as needed.

Preston

Helmut Springer
August 22nd 03, 08:52 AM
Peter Cole > wrote:
> I think most corrosion problems come from riding in the rain.

I'm often taking salt crystals of my stem and head tube after
rinding. While climbing there isn't much wind...


--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

David Damerell
August 22nd 03, 01:31 PM
Peter Cole > wrote:
>"David Damerell" > wrote in message
>>[1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually at least
>>somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind will blow droplets of
>>sweat to the rear. When I sweat enough that it cannot evaporate it hits
>>me on the knees, not on the headset!
>I think most corrosion problems come from riding in the rain.

I doubt it. I have ridden in Britain in all weathers for many years, and
only in the last couple of years acquired a cycling cape (which covers the
stem - even then, the bike is periodically parked in the rain). I've
never has a stuck quill stem.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

Al Frost
August 22nd 03, 02:18 PM
wrote in news:Rv81b.13860$dk4.490375
@typhoon.sonic.net:

> That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance and
> safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems with
> quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a 0.975 dia
> aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular stem.
>
> Jobst Brandt
>
> Palo Alto CA
>
Now there's logic for you! Assuming that your 1.25" steerer and your
0.975" quill were not hollow and there were made of similar materials then
your conclusion of a higher safety margin would be sound. But they are
not. The wall thickness of a steerer is much less than that of a quill.
Even though the outside diameter of the steerer is much larger the quill
retains it's strength with increased wall thickness. Besides if you are
breaking your quills then you need to take up a different activity.

AL

Werehatrack
August 22nd 03, 02:42 PM
On 21 Aug 2003 08:21:06 -0700, Sam Huffman >
may have said:

>Werehatrack > writes:
>
>> On 21 Aug 2003 13:21:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>> > may have said:
>>
>> >The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply to
>> >very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is not just
>> >a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow manage to sweat a lot
>> >onto the headset, sticking the quill in place [1].
>>
>> I'm not sure I want to know what's going on atop a bike that's
>> accumulating sweat on the stem. *Really* I don't.
>
>Perhaps using the bike on a trainer?

Plausible, at least.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Werehatrack
August 22nd 03, 02:43 PM
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:45:29 GMT, "Peter Cole"
> may have said:

>I think most corrosion problems come from riding in the rain.

Or parking outdoors. There's a mid-60s Schwinn outside with the
effects of that too visible.


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Bob M
August 22nd 03, 02:56 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:18:00 GMT, Al Frost > wrote:

> wrote in news:Rv81b.13860$dk4.490375
> @typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance and
>> safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems with
>> quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a 0.975 dia
>> aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular stem.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>>
>> Palo Alto CA
>>
> Now there's logic for you! Assuming that your 1.25" steerer and your
> 0.975" quill were not hollow and there were made of similar materials
> then your conclusion of a higher safety margin would be sound. But they
> are not. The wall thickness of a steerer is much less than that of a
> quill. Even though the outside diameter of the steerer is much larger
> the quill retains it's strength with increased wall thickness. Besides
> if you are breaking your quills then you need to take up a different
> activity.
>
> AL
>

Personally, I cannot tell any strength difference between my quill stem on
my old Trek and the threadless system on my new LeMond.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

Mike DeMicco
August 22nd 03, 05:10 PM
Al Frost > wrote in
.141:

> No, most corrosion problems stem from a lack of maintenance!
> Removing, lubricating and reinstalling the quill stem (and seatpin,
> for that matter) at regular intervals will prevent them from sticking.

Yes, and doing that maintenance is a royal pain and has to be done often.
Also, I can't get the stem fully out without undoing cables.

However, there should be a simple way of keeping sweat and water from going
down inside the steerer tube (the O-ring doesn't work). Maybe a rubber boot
or a wrap of electrical tape around the junction.

In my opinion, threadless is better.

August 22nd 03, 07:07 PM
David Damerell writes:

> I have ridden in Britain in all weathers for many years, and only in
> the last couple of years acquired a cycling cape (which covers the
> stem - even then, the bike is periodically parked in the rain).
> I've never had a stuck quill stem.

Your testimonial is commonly offered proof on wreck.bike that
demonstrates that there are exceptions. If you ask frame repair or
bicycle repair shop folks, you'll get a different assessment. The
permanently stuck stem is a recurring subject in this forum to which
all sorts of clever solutions are offered, mostly by people like
yourself, who have not had an aluminum stem stuck in a steel steer
tube.

Aluminum oxidizes easily in the steel tube and in so doing causes an
oxide that has twice the volume of the metal from which it is made.
This occurs with such force that it expands steer tubes. For this
reason, of all the methods offered, only one, works. The upper
(elbow) part of the stem must be sawed off, drilled out and slit with
a Dremel tool to be extracted.

Aside from stuck stems, creaking stems are a common complaint. The
quill stem is secured only at its bottom end and is free to yaw in the
upper end of its engagement in the steer tube. This motion causes
water pumping, regardless of whether there is an o-ring in the lock
nut or not. For those who climb hills, sweat drips on that area and
the next rain washes it in. For those who don't sweat, ride hills.

I think if you will review this, you will see that your experience is
not that of bicyclists at large.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

August 22nd 03, 07:10 PM
Al Frost writes:

> No, most corrosion problems stem from a lack of maintenance!
> Removing, lubricating and reinstalling the quill stem (and seatpin,
> for that matter) at regular intervals will prevent them from
> sticking.

Another proof that "threadless headsets" are a boon to cyclists who
ride much. What do you propose as a service interval. Should we
program our speedometers to warn of needed disassembly?

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

August 22nd 03, 07:17 PM
Al Frost writes:

>> That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance
>> and safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems
>> with quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a
>> 0.975 dia aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular
>> stem.

> Now there's logic for you! Assuming that your 1.25" steerer and
> your 0.975" quill were not hollow and there were made of similar
> materials then your conclusion of a higher safety margin would be
> sound. But they are not. The wall thickness of a steerer is much
> less than that of a quill. Even though the outside diameter of the
> steerer is much larger the quill retains it's strength with
> increased wall thickness. Besides if you are breaking your quills
> then you need to take up a different activity.

Oops! The strength of a round cross section is given primarily by its
outside diameter. That is why bicycle frames are made of thin walled
tubing instead of solid bars. Most of the aluminum inside the stem is
just excess weight. Meanwhile consider the thin skin of an aircraft.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Java Man (Espressopithecus)
August 22nd 03, 07:17 PM
In article >,
says...
>
> David L. Johnson wrote in message ...
> >>
> >With a quill stem (that is, with a threaded fork and headset),
>
> Dave, when was the last time you saw anyone
> riding with those old things, these days
> everyone ride threadless.

I don't know about Dave, but when I looked down momentarily while riding
ride yesterday, I saw a quill stem! Egads!
>
> And if you do see guys with quill stems on the
> next ride then find another group to ride with,
> because they are the 'B' group. Those are
> probably the same lamers that are running
> conventional 32 spoke wheels. Not the types
> you want to been seen with!
>
Yes, you're obviously right. Equipment makes the man.

Rick

August 22nd 03, 07:23 PM
David Damerell writes:

>> The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply
>> to very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is
>> not just a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow
>> manage to sweat a lot onto the headset, sticking the quill in place.

> I'm not sure I want to know what's going on atop a bike that's
> accumulating sweat on the stem. *Really* I don't.

I take it you don't ride enough to work up a sweat. Where do you
ride? I have friends who were saved by the advent of good titanium
frames to solve their perspiration damage to the bicycle. Maybe you
ought to ride bike in the hills to discover how that happens.

I can think of one that would do the trick:

http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/i11.html

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Buck
August 22nd 03, 07:39 PM
> wrote in message
...

> Oops! The strength of a round cross section is given primarily by its
> outside diameter. That is why bicycle frames are made of thin walled
> tubing instead of solid bars. Most of the aluminum inside the stem is
> just excess weight. Meanwhile consider the thin skin of an aircraft.

Hey Jobst, aren't the aluminum walls of a quill stem thicker so they can
deal with the compression load applied when the center bolt is used to
tighten the wedge?

-Buck

August 22nd 03, 07:50 PM
David Damerell writes:

>>> I have ridden in Britain in all weathers for many years, and only
>>> in the last couple of years acquired a cycling cape (which covers
>>> the stem - even then, the bike is periodically parked in the
>>> rain). I've never had a stuck quill stem.

>> Your testimonial is commonly offered proof on wreck.bike that
>> demonstrates that there are exceptions.

> Hang on; I am merely challenging here the specific assertion that it
> is down to rain alone without the addition of sweat.

It still boils down to that you don't sweat and probably don't ride
long hills... in the summer. If that is the case then you may be
right. I don't know any riders who have had stuck stems that didn't
ride hills. I suppose a downtown commuter might fit that description
but then they usually use steel stems around here.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

David Damerell
August 22nd 03, 07:53 PM
> wrote:
>Werehatrack > writes:
>>David Damerell writes:

I have restored the correct attribution lines here. Please take care not
to mangle them. I did not write the paragraph beginning "I'm not sure",
but from your article people would conclude that I did.

>>>The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply
>>>to very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is
>>>not just a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow
>>>manage to sweat a lot onto the headset, sticking the quill in place.
>>I'm not sure I want to know what's going on atop a bike that's
>>accumulating sweat on the stem. *Really* I don't.
>I take it you don't ride enough to work up a sweat. Where do you
>ride?

I ride in Britain, which is not exactly flat in places.

>I can think of one that would do the trick:
>http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/i11.html

While I don't sweat much, I'm sure I'd sweat enough coming up that that
droplets would fail to evaporate and instead trickle off my chin - but if
I judge the gradient correctly, my chin would at that point be a few
inches to the rear of my stem!

As I've said before, when I do sweat copiously, it hits me in the knees.
I'm not saying it's not a problem for _some_ riders, but equally there are
some people for whom a quill stem is unlikely to stick.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

August 22nd 03, 07:54 PM
Buck who? writes:

>> Oops! The strength of a round cross section is given primarily by its
>> outside diameter. That is why bicycle frames are made of thin walled
>> tubing instead of solid bars. Most of the aluminum inside the stem is
>> just excess weight. Meanwhile consider the thin skin of an aircraft.

> Hey Jobst, aren't the aluminum walls of a quill stem thicker so they
> can deal with the compression load applied when the center bolt is
> used to tighten the wedge?

They were mostly made with a conical expander, for which a thicker
body was necessary but when they switched to the slant wedge, nothing
was changed. They easily could have been made thinner. Local riders
bored out the horizontal shaft of Cinelli stems.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Jennifer Donleavy
August 22nd 03, 09:13 PM
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:50:25 GMT,
wrote:

>That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance and
>safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems with
>quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a 0.975 dia
>aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular stem.

Indeed, 0.975 diameter aluminum is not a lot, especially when it is
getting gouged by the top edge of the steer tube. But wouldn't a
steel stem solve this problem and the problem of the stuck stems? Or
are those clamps for track bikes that fit on the stem where it goes
into the steerer a better solution?

Jennifer D

Gary Young
August 22nd 03, 09:49 PM
David Damerell > wrote in message >...

<snip>
> The two main arguments I've heard for threadless seem only to apply to
> very heavy riders with powerful upper bodies (where "stiffer" is not just
> a meaningless marketing fact) and people who somehow manage to sweat a lot
> onto the headset, sticking the quill in place [1].
<snip>
> If, like me, you don't have either of those two problems you are entirely
> [1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually at least
> somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind will blow droplets of
> sweat to the rear. When I sweat enough that it cannot evaporate it hits
> me on the knees, not on the headset!

When I'm riding my road bike, my head is almost directly over the
headset. I don't think I'm unusual in that respect. That's probably
why they make those sweat catchers for trainers long enough to cover
the headset.

You're right that apparent wind keeps the sweat away most of the time,
but what about when you've made a hard effort on a hot day and then
have to stop for a light? That's when I notice sweat getting into my
eyes and onto my headset.

August 22nd 03, 10:07 PM
Jennifer Donleavy writes:

>> That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance
>> and safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems
>> with quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a
>> 0.875 dia aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular
>> stem.

> Indeed, 0.875 diameter aluminum is not a lot, especially when it is
> getting gouged by the top edge of the steer tube. But wouldn't a
> steel stem solve this problem and the problem of the stuck stems?
> Or are those clamps for track bikes that fit on the stem where it
> goes into the steerer a better solution?

Now that you mention it, that's the setup (with track clamp) I have
but I still don't like the way it performs. I climb hills standing
and find the forward reach of the stem and its 0.875 dia post an
unnecessary torsion bar between me and the bicycle. I'm looking
forward to a new fork with suitable steertube to get rid of that.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Werehatrack
August 22nd 03, 10:34 PM
On 22 Aug 2003 13:49:03 -0700, (Gary Young) may
have said:

>You're right that apparent wind keeps the sweat away most of the time,
>but what about when you've made a hard effort on a hot day and then
>have to stop for a light? That's when I notice sweat getting into my
>eyes and onto my headset.

Good point, although I tend not to drop all the way forward until I'm
rolling a little more, as my shifters aren't conveniently reachable
once I'm in the drops.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Werehatrack
August 22nd 03, 10:40 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:23:27 GMT, may
have said:

>I take it you don't ride enough to work up a sweat.

In Houston? Getting on the bike could be enough work up a sweat. (In
Miami, just going outside to get on the bike would be enough.)

> Where do you
>ride? I have friends who were saved by the advent of good titanium
>frames to solve their perspiration damage to the bicycle. Maybe you
>ought to ride bike in the hills to discover how that happens.

I like my flatlands in certain respects. I like hills, too, but I
prefer to attack them on foot.

>I can think of one that would do the trick:
>
>http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/i11.html

Some people will just go out of the way to find a challenge. Hey, if
they like it, I'll bring popcorn and watch.



--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

Jennifer Donleavy
August 22nd 03, 10:56 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:07:39 GMT,
wrote:

>
>Now that you mention it, that's the setup (with track clamp) I have
>but I still don't like the way it performs. I climb hills standing
>and find the forward reach of the stem and its 0.875 dia post an
>unnecessary torsion bar between me and the bicycle.

Yeah, I know! Are those track clamps even available anymore? I can't
find one anywhere. Did you buy it recently or is it from the old
days?

> I'm looking
>forward to a new fork with suitable steertube to get rid of that.

What about a steel stem? That's the solution I am considering --
having a tubular steel stem tig welded by a local frame builder.
Would that be a good, safe solution? Do they break from the notching
like I am expecting my current stem to do?

Jennifer D

August 22nd 03, 11:33 PM
Jennifer Donleavy writes:

>> Now that you mention it, that's the setup (with track clamp) I have
>> but I still don't like the way it performs. I climb hills standing
>> and find the forward reach of the stem and its 0.875 dia post an
>> unnecessary torsion bar between me and the bicycle.

> Yeah, I know! Are those track clamps even available anymore? I
> can't find one anywhere. Did you buy it recently or is it from the
> old days?

I got my fork built with the split extension by a friend who has old
track bicycles with that sort of clamp. It's all SSTL anyway but that
doesn't stop the steertube from rusting just the same.

>> I'm looking forward to a new fork with suitable steertube to get
>> rid of that.

> What about a steel stem? That's the solution I am considering --
> having a tubular steel stem tig welded by a local frame builder.
> Would that be a good, safe solution? Do they break from the notching
> like I am expecting my current stem to do?

You can have mine when I get the new fork.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

James Thomson
August 23rd 03, 02:13 AM
"David Damerell" > wrote:

> I have a threaded fork with a Nitto quill stem - to get the same
> bar position with a threadless headset would demand a very
> unusually shaped stem.

Not necessarily - it might demand a conventionally-shaped stem with a
longer-than-average steerer, or a steerer extender. On the other hand, to
raise your bars to their present height required an unusually-shaped stem:
a Nitto Technomic.

> [1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually
> at least somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind
> will blow droplets of sweat to the rear.

When *en danseuse*, one's shoulders are usually above or slightly behind
one's hands, and one's head slightly in front.

James Thomson

James Thomson
August 23rd 03, 02:15 AM
"Al Frost" > wrote:

> Besides if you are breaking your quills then you need to
> take up a different activity.

Why, when he can buy a fork with a threadless steerer?

James Thomson

Ryan Cousineau
August 23rd 03, 02:50 AM
In article >,
(JP) wrote:

> wrote in message
> >...
> > Al Frost writes:
> >
> > >> That depends on whether the old system is a burden on maintenance
> > >> and safety. I'm going to change because I have had enough problems
> > >> with quill stems to warrant it. Besides, the safety margin in a
> > >> 0.975 dia aluminum stem is nowhere near that of a 1.25 dia tubular
> > >> stem.
> >
> > > Now there's logic for you! Assuming that your 1.25" steerer and
> > > your 0.975" quill were not hollow and there were made of similar
> > > materials then your conclusion of a higher safety margin would be
> > > sound. But they are not. The wall thickness of a steerer is much
> > > less than that of a quill. Even though the outside diameter of the
> > > steerer is much larger the quill retains it's strength with
> > > increased wall thickness. Besides if you are breaking your quills
> > > then you need to take up a different activity.
> >
> > Oops! The strength of a round cross section is given primarily by its
> > outside diameter. That is why bicycle frames are made of thin walled
> > tubing instead of solid bars. Most of the aluminum inside the stem is
> > just excess weight. Meanwhile consider the thin skin of an aircraft.
>
> Maybe we should make stems, and bicycles for that matter, from rolled
> aluminum foil, then.

We would, except for the "beer-can effect" of too-easy denting. Really
light aluminum road frames and some MTB monocoque frames (the Norco VPS
bikes come to mind) already push the limits of frame wall thinness
against the limits of reasonable dent resistance.

The other limit is UCI regulations, which give a maximum diameter for
tubes, IIRC.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

dianne_1234
August 23rd 03, 03:23 AM
wrote in message >...
> I got my fork built with the split extension by a friend who has old
> track bicycles with that sort of clamp.

What is this track clamp?

> It's all SSTL

??

(I'm feeling ignorant today)

Robin Hubert
August 23rd 03, 03:44 AM
"Bob M" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:17:25 GMT, > wrote:
>
> > Al Frost writes:
> >
>

<snip>

>I'd rather to be able to lower and raise the
> handlebars (perhaps even during a ride) without taking 15 minutes to take
> the stem off and switch spacers. >
> --

Cerebral palsy or some other dyskinesis?



--
Robin Hubert >

Fabrizio Mazzoleni
August 23rd 03, 04:50 AM
Eric St. Mary wrote in message >...
>
>
>Wow Fabrizio!Wow Fabrizio! You are iggnorant, a poser, and a jackass all
>in one. An amazing combo.

Oh yea? Guess who rode ol Rik Verbrugghe into the
ground today at the Meisterschaft von Zürich?

Now what do you think?

Andrew Lee
August 23rd 03, 05:09 AM
"Bob M" > wrote:

> Personally, I cannot tell any strength difference between my quill stem on
> my old Trek and the threadless system on my new LeMond.
>
> --
> Bob M in CT
> Remove 'x.' to reply

This reminds me of my one experience with a broken stem. This was about 20
years ago when I was in junior high or high school. I pulled out the quill
stem on my bike and was shocked to see that the quill was in two pieces,
cracked all the way around. It was held together only by the expander bolt.
The crack was well below the level of headset locknut. I don't recall for
sure whether or not that was the first time I pulled the stem out (but
probably not), so I don't know if it broke during my use or earlier (the
bike was a hand-me-down). I put the stem back (deeper) into the steerer
tube and kept on riding that bike through high school. Not the smartest
thing, but I didn't have money and I figured it had enough unbroken quill
length to not to break again.

Sorni
August 23rd 03, 05:12 AM
"Robin Hubert" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Bob M" > wrote in message
> ...

> >I'd rather to be able to lower and raise the
> > handlebars (perhaps even during a ride) without taking 15 minutes to
take
> > the stem off and switch spacers. >
> > --
>
> Cerebral palsy or some other dyskinesis?

Best post of the day!

Bill "impressed" S.

August 23rd 03, 05:27 AM
Dianne who? writes:

>> I got my fork built with the split extension by a friend who has
>> old track bicycles with that sort of clamp.

> What is this track clamp?

The steertube extends without threads above the head set, is split
and gets clamped with a ring and pinch-bolt.

>> It's all SSTL

Stainless steel abbreviated from the KBD.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

August 23rd 03, 06:19 AM
Fabrizio Mazzoleni writes:

>> Wow Fabrizio! Wow Fabrizio! You are iggnorant, a poser, and a
>> jackass all in one. An amazing combo.

> Oh yea? Guess who rode ol Rik Verbrugghe into the ground today at
> the Meisterschaft von Zürich?

> Now what do you think?

Well don't keep it a secret:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

90. Meisterschaft von Zürich -- Resultate
Zürich. Weltcuprennen Meisterschaft von Zürich (236 km):

1. Daniele Nardello (It) 5:55:30 (39,932 km/h)
2. Jan Ullrich (De) 0:06 zurück
3. Paolo Bettini (It) 0:11
4. Michael Boogerd (Ho)
5. Davide Rebellin (It)
6. Javier Pascual Rodriguez (Sp)
7. Oscar Camenzind (Sz)
8. David Moncouti (Fr)
9. Michele Scarponi (It)
10. Cristian Moreni (It)
11. Francesco Casagrande (It)
12. Eladio Jimenez (Sp)
13. Patrik Sinkewitz (De)
14. Danilo Di Luca (It)
15. Didier Rous (Fr)
16. Richard Virenque (Fr)
17. Ivan Basso (It), alle gleiche Zeit
18. Michael Rasmussen (D) 0:17
19. Beat Zberg (Sz) 1:09
20. Rik Verbrugghe (Be), gleiche Zeit.
21. Axel Merckx (Be) 1:12
22. Christophe Brandt (Be) 1:18
23. Massimiliano Lelli (It)
24. Juan Antonio Flecha (Sp)
25. Laurent Dufaux (Sz)
26. Christophe Oriol (Fr)
27. Mirko Celestino (It)
28. Ruggero Marzoli (It)
29. Matthias Kessler (De)
30. David Caada (Sp) alle gleiche Zeit.

Ferner: 38. Steve Zampieri 1:37.
49. Pierre Bourquenoud 4:14.
58. Markus Zberg 9:36.
70. Alexandre Moos 11:27.
74. Daniel Schnider 15:19.
77. Gr gory Rast.
82. Sven Montgomery.
83. Martin Elmiger, alle gleiche Zeit.

187 gestartet,
85 klassiert
Aufgegeben u.a.

Dario Frigo (It, Vorjahressieger)
Alexander Winokurow (Kas)
Fabian Cancellara
Marcel Strauss
Patrick Calcagni
Niki Aebersold
Michael Albasini
Alex Zülle

Weltcup-Stand (8/10):
1. Bettini 350
2. Boogerd 204
3. Peter van Petegem (Be) 203
4. Rebellin 187
5. Celestino 139
6. Di Luca 136
Ferner: 31. Camenzind 28
38. Beat Zberg 22
45. Dufaux 16
49. Markus Zberg 12


copyright by Sportinformation, Zürich.
All rights reserved worldwide - for personal use only

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

Bill Davidson
August 23rd 03, 08:41 AM
Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
> Oh yea? Guess who rode ol Rik Verbrugghe into the
> ground today at the Meisterschaft von Zürich?

Nardello? Ullrich? Bettini?

You've got to do better than that. It's no fun if it's too easy.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

Marten Hoffmann
August 23rd 03, 03:49 PM
schreef ...

> However, there should be a simple way of keeping sweat and water from going
> down inside the steerer tube (the O-ring doesn't work). Maybe a rubber boot
> or a wrap of electrical tape around the junction.

These boots are for sale at bicycle stores, for example Lizard Skins
http://www.lizardskins.com/

--
Regards,
Marten

Peter Cole
August 23rd 03, 06:35 PM
"David Damerell" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Cole > wrote:
> >"David Damerell" > wrote in message
> >>[1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually at least
> >>somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind will blow droplets of
> >>sweat to the rear. When I sweat enough that it cannot evaporate it hits
> >>me on the knees, not on the headset!
> >I think most corrosion problems come from riding in the rain.
>
> I doubt it. I have ridden in Britain in all weathers for many years, and
> only in the last couple of years acquired a cycling cape (which covers the
> stem - even then, the bike is periodically parked in the rain). I've
> never has a stuck quill stem.

All of my bikes show rust inside the steertube. Perhaps it's accelerated by
the salt compounds used to treat the roads here in New England, but such
corrosion and stuck quills/seatposts seem to not be a strictly salted road
phenomenon, judging from the posts here over the years. Just because you
haven't had the experience doesn't mean it's not a common problem.

Ryan Cousineau
August 23rd 03, 08:39 PM
In article >,
(JP) wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (JP) wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > > >...
>
> > > > Oops! The strength of a round cross section is given primarily by its
> > > > outside diameter. That is why bicycle frames are made of thin walled
> > > > tubing instead of solid bars. Most of the aluminum inside the stem is
> > > > just excess weight. Meanwhile consider the thin skin of an aircraft.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should make stems, and bicycles for that matter, from rolled
> > > aluminum foil, then.
> >
> > We would, except for the "beer-can effect" of too-easy denting. Really
> > light aluminum road frames and some MTB monocoque frames (the Norco VPS
> > bikes come to mind) already push the limits of frame wall thinness
> > against the limits of reasonable dent resistance.
>
> So you're saying that ultra thin wall aluminum frames aren't strong
> enough? At this extreme strength is not simply derived from the
> diameter of the tubing, it's based on frame design, the way the tubes
> are arranged, just as an airplane's aluminum skin would be inadequate
> without its internal skeleton. Try folding an empty beer can. Its
> weakness is not just observable as proneness to denting.

No, I'm saying that thin-wall aluminum frames are quite strong in the
ways that matter for a cyclist: they're stiff and resist being
compressed, flexed, or twisted. The arrangement of tubes on a UCI-legal
bicycle is largely fixed: there is little leeway for one design to have
a more rigid arrangement of tubes than another, for the same material in
the same dimensions.

The biggest constraint on making tubes as thin and large-diameter as the
normal stresses of a bike frame would prefer is that at some point you
would build a bike with featherweight, huge-diameter tubes, but the wall
thickness (being so much less important than the outside diameter for
determining rigidity) would be so low that the tubes would have too
little dent resistance. Dent resistance isn't part of what happens to a
bike when it gets ridden, but bikes need some dent-resistance so they
don't get dented when not being ridden, especially since dents in round
tubes (or in the wrong place on any tube) greatly compromise strength.

Empty beer cans do fold easily, but they don't need dent resistance at
that point in their life, and their walls are less than .013" thick.
Beer cans are remarkable structures, being very carefully analyzed and
costed, and a beer can is effectively a double-butted tube, with thicker
material at the top and bottom of the can. They are tremendously strong
for their weight, and a very optimized design. Internal gusseting can
make any design stronger, but for a given weight, it's not the way to
go, since you can get more strength (at least against torsional and
bending loads) by making the cylinder diameter larger.

Notes on aluminum cans:
http://www.psc.edu/science/ALCOA/ALCOA-light.html

Dent-resistance in aluminum cans:
http://www.psc.edu/science/ALCOA/ALCOA-model.html

An aircraft's skin is a stressed structure, a "monocoque" design. The
frame inside the skin is part of the structural strength of a plane, but
not as much as you would think. One important function the inner frame
provides is a place to mount interior fittings. Meanwhile the important
job of keeping the aircraft from twisting, flexing, or folding is done
mostly by the exterior skin, not the inner frame.

> > The other limit is UCI regulations, which give a maximum diameter for
> > tubes, IIRC.
>
> Right. When you reach the UCI limit for tube diameter, you also reach
> a limit for wall thichness beyond which strength will be inadequate.
>
> Strength is a function of both tube diameter and tube wall thickness,
> not to mention alloy and heat treatment properties.

It is, but the former completely dwarfs the latter, and the last two
aren't part of this discussion.

Let me put it to you another way: given the same amount of aluminum
(that is, the same weight, and of course the same alloy/heat treatment)
in two different round tubes spanning the same distance (say, 60 cm, the
top tube length of a large but typical bike), the one with the larger
diameter will always be stronger against torsion and bending, and Jobst
will correct me, but I think compression too.

The other tube will of course have thicker walls, but it won't be as
strong because diameter trumps wall thickness.

Now, "your" tube will take less damage if I take a hammer and try to put
a dent in the side of both tubes. And in the real world, I eventually
make "my" tubes so thin that they get crumpled by passing breezes,
aluminum foil style. At the point where the tube doesn't have enough
wall strength to resist ordinary wear and tear (you know, people
touching the frame :), it will dent easily, and once it is dented, it
will no longer be a nice round tube, and its strength will be badly
compromised. Going back to the beer can analogy, it's easy to dent an
empty beer can, and a dented beer can is much easier to crush than an
undented one, because it collapses around the dent, causing more folding
and "dents", and then the thing loses all resemblance to a tube and
falls down.

> That's not to say that I disagree with Jobst's conclusion that the
> wider diameter stem will be stronger for a given weight, but I'm
> guessing that the difference in strength between typical threadless
> and quill stems is not a meaningful consideration, unless you are
> pushing the design to its limit for weight savings. The bottomline in
> the real world of off the shelf components is weight (and business
> costs) versus adjustibility.

It's a positive attribute of a design which has other more important
advantages: threadless stems have no quill to seize or invisibly bulge
the steer tube. As several have already noted, these advantages are not
enough that most of us need to rush out and change our headsets, but all
things being equal, threadless is preferable.

As for the adjustability issue, stem reach is at least as important as
stem height for establishing a proper fit, but nobody seems to mention
that if anything, it is much easier to change out a threadless stem for
one of different reach than it is to change many threaded stems, since a
threaded stem without much excess cable may require detaching cables to
fully remove the stem. Not to mention that while removable-cap
threadless stems are nearly universal, removable-cap threaded stems are
at best only moderately available. If you're trying to get your
handlebars into the right position by adjusting the height without
changing the reach, you're just trying to get an ill-fitting bike into
the least-worst position!

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Tom Sherman
August 23rd 03, 10:10 PM
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> ...
> Let me put it to you another way: given the same amount of aluminum
> (that is, the same weight, and of course the same alloy/heat treatment)
> in two different round tubes spanning the same distance (say, 60 cm, the
> top tube length of a large but typical bike), the one with the larger
> diameter will always be stronger against torsion and bending, and Jobst
> will correct me, but I think compression too....

The compressive strength of both tubes will be the same. However,
slender structural members loaded in compression will fail by buckling:
i.e. the member will bow out in one direction (at which point it is no
longer loaded simply in compression, since bending moments have been
introduced.

The larger diameter tube will be more resistant to buckling, so it can
carry a greater compressive load.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

basjan
August 24th 03, 09:28 PM
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
...
> Ahhh, another 'innovation' created to save money for the industry and as a
> response to **** poor wrenching. Like the english threaded BB...

From a previous post I thought it was decided that the English thread was
better because it does not loosen as easily. My intuition was that the
Italian thread would be better (especially on the right, with it's clockwise
tightening), but hey, the action-reaction law nailed that thought... English
thread = tightening due to this law, not "self-loosening" when riding, only
self-loosening when actually wrenching...thus better, IMHO

Qui si parla Campagnolo
August 25th 03, 02:16 PM
basjan-<< From a previous post I thought it was decided that the English thread
was
better because it does not loosen as easily. >><BR><BR>

It was decided?? Not by me. When I had Mark Nobilette make me a custom frameset
I insisted on a Italian BB shell..My doesn't loosen, neither do ones installed
properly on a properly prepped frameset.

basjan-<< but hey, the action-reaction law nailed that thought... English
thread = tightening due to this law, not "self-loosening" when riding, only
self-loosening when actually wrenching...thus better, >><BR><BR>

I would hope that you aren't relying on this 'action' to tighten your
BB..Sluggish cart bearings, ****poor wrenches that cannot face a BB shell...no
'corporate' knowledge, slapped together bikes in factorys...all that helped to
put the smack onto Italian BBs...



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

basjan
August 25th 03, 02:33 PM
It is one of those "obvious" things which I wanted to be hard-headed about,
but my reigns were yanked back . I love Italian frames, the artistry and
mystique is a big factor to me. But Italian BB's are definitely inferior to
English BB's. Sure you can get one that loosens if improperly installed.
But plain physics explains: I pedal my BB axle forward, which has a backward
effect on the bearings and BB cup, hence loosening the Italian,
clockwise/forward-tightening cup. English BB's on the other hand negate
this effect by tigthening backwards. Now I must admit, I thought Italian
BB's were superior too, but after posts and discussion on this group, it
would seem the opposite is true. If something is better by
design/engineering, why hold on to alternatives that are not?



"Qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
...
> basjan-<< From a previous post I thought it was decided that the English
thread
> was
> better because it does not loosen as easily. >><BR><BR>
>
> It was decided?? Not by me. When I had Mark Nobilette make me a custom
frameset
> I insisted on a Italian BB shell..My doesn't loosen, neither do ones
installed
> properly on a properly prepped frameset.
>
> basjan-<< but hey, the action-reaction law nailed that thought... English
> thread = tightening due to this law, not "self-loosening" when riding,
only
> self-loosening when actually wrenching...thus better, >><BR><BR>
>
> I would hope that you aren't relying on this 'action' to tighten your
> BB..Sluggish cart bearings, ****poor wrenches that cannot face a BB
shell...no
> 'corporate' knowledge, slapped together bikes in factorys...all that
helped to
> put the smack onto Italian BBs...
>
>
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

JP
August 25th 03, 04:07 PM
Ryan Cousineau > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (JP) wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > We would, except for the "beer-can effect" of too-easy denting. Really
> > > light aluminum road frames and some MTB monocoque frames (the Norco VPS
> > > bikes come to mind) already push the limits of frame wall thinness
> > > against the limits of reasonable dent resistance.
> >
> > So you're saying that ultra thin wall aluminum frames aren't strong
> > enough? At this extreme strength is not simply derived from the
> > diameter of the tubing, it's based on frame design, the way the tubes
> > are arranged, just as an airplane's aluminum skin would be inadequate
> > without its internal skeleton. Try folding an empty beer can. Its
> > weakness is not just observable as proneness to denting.
>
> No, I'm saying that thin-wall aluminum frames are quite strong in the
> ways that matter for a cyclist: they're stiff and resist being
> compressed, flexed, or twisted.

According to you dent resistance seems to matter, and according to
you, it is an issue with thin wall aluminum frames.

> The arrangement of tubes on a UCI-legal
> bicycle is largely fixed: there is little leeway for one design to have
> a more rigid arrangement of tubes than another, for the same material in
> the same dimensions.

So? That is completely irrelevant. My point is that the design, which
you say is mandated by the UCI, provides the strength for a bicycle
frame. Imagine one of your thin wall aluminum frames without a top
tube or down tube. It has almost not strength at all. It would
collapse like an empty beer can.

> Dent resistance isn't part of what happens to a
> bike when it gets ridden, but bikes need some dent-resistance so they
> don't get dented when not being ridden, especially since dents in round
> tubes (or in the wrong place on any tube) greatly compromise strength.

Dent resistance is a function of tube strength. A tube that will dent
easily will fold easily if it is not braced.

> Empty beer cans do fold easily, but they don't need dent resistance at
> that point in their life, and their walls are less than .013" thick.

Exactly.

> Internal gusseting can
> make any design stronger, but for a given weight, it's not the way to
> go, since you can get more strength (at least against torsional and
> bending loads) by making the cylinder diameter larger.

Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result of
the can's pressurized contents. I have had the misfortune on a couple
of occasions to get a can of flat beer. I knew something was wrong
when I crushed it in the process of getting it out of the
refrigerator. Try this simple experiment (requires wasting a perfectly
good can of beer): drill a tiny hole in a beer can and then let the
beer sit for a couple of weeks to go flat. Test how easy it is to dent
or fold.

Bike frames have external gusseting- the frame structue itself.

> An aircraft's skin is a stressed structure, a "monocoque" design. The
> frame inside the skin is part of the structural strength of a plane, but
> not as much as you would think.

You might be surprised what I would think.

> One important function the inner frame
> provides is a place to mount interior fittings. Meanwhile the important
> job of keeping the aircraft from twisting, flexing, or folding is done
> mostly by the exterior skin, not the inner frame.

That's absurd. It's a combination of both the frame and the skin.

> > Strength is a function of both tube diameter and tube wall thickness,
> > not to mention alloy and heat treatment properties.
>
> It is, but the former completely dwarfs the latter, and the last two
> aren't part of this discussion.

Yes they are.

(snipped)
> Going back to the beer can analogy, it's easy to dent an
> empty beer can, and a dented beer can is much easier to crush than an
> undented one, because it collapses around the dent, causing more folding
> and "dents", and then the thing loses all resemblance to a tube and
> falls down.

And an thin-walled aluminum bicycle frame without a top tube or a down
tube will do the same thing.

> It's a positive attribute of a design which has other more important
> advantages: threadless stems have no quill to seize or invisibly bulge
> the steer tube. As several have already noted, these advantages are not
> enough that most of us need to rush out and change our headsets, but all
> things being equal, threadless is preferable.

Speak for yourself. While I think the threadless-type stems look cool,
I think that adjustibility trumps looks and a small weight advantage.
Even someone getting a custom built bike might at some time want to
change the handlebar height without having to go out and buy a new
stem.

> As for the adjustability issue, stem reach is at least as important as
> stem height for establishing a proper fit, but nobody seems to mention
> that if anything, it is much easier to change out a threadless stem for
> one of different reach than it is to change many threaded stems, since a
> threaded stem without much excess cable may require detaching cables to
> fully remove the stem.

Now this is a good point. However, a properly fitted bike should have
the right reach stem on it, or have to be changed only once, unless
your arms grow. We have seen from the comments here that lowering the
bars as conditioning improves is a common practice. It used to be a
standard practice for someone taking up cycling as a serious sport.
It's no longer an easy recommendation to make to a novice.

It is possible to buy quill stems that allow removal of the handlebars
(I have one), so the issue there is only whether there would be enough
slack in the cables to use a longer extension (there probably isn't) -
the same issue you would have with a threadless stem.

> Not to mention that while removable-cap
> threadless stems are nearly universal, removable-cap threaded stems are
> at best only moderately available.

Not really. If you want one, all you have to do is buy it. And there
is no doubt about it- they are better quill stem designs than the ones
without the removable cap. So this design feature is obviously
separate from the threadless/quill question.

> If you're trying to get your
> handlebars into the right position by adjusting the height without
> changing the reach, you're just trying to get an ill-fitting bike into
> the least-worst position!

Not at all! The stem reach is as fundamental to sizing a bike as seat
tube height, maybe more so since the saddle height is adjustable. Get
the reach right and then tweak the height as your fitness and needs
require. Many people clearly have a requirement to change the height
within the parameters of a stem wit a proper reach.

JP

David Reuteler
August 25th 03, 06:22 PM
In rec.bicycles.misc Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
: Fair enough, but in bicycles, simple dent-resistance will be more
: important than compressive buckling. That is, the tube thinness in
: bicycles is dictated by the inability of the tube to withstand normal
: handling in non-riding modes (or stupid stuff like your knee hitting the
: top tube while riding).

geez, ryan. i thought you were an english major or something. fabrizio
never talks like this. making sense, i mean. what gives?
--
david reuteler

Ryan Cousineau
August 26th 03, 03:36 AM
In article >,
(JP) wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (JP) wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan Cousineau > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > We would, except for the "beer-can effect" of too-easy denting. Really
> > > > light aluminum road frames and some MTB monocoque frames (the Norco VPS
> > > > bikes come to mind) already push the limits of frame wall thinness
> > > > against the limits of reasonable dent resistance.
> > >
> > > So you're saying that ultra thin wall aluminum frames aren't strong
> > > enough? At this extreme strength is not simply derived from the
> > > diameter of the tubing, it's based on frame design, the way the tubes
> > > are arranged, just as an airplane's aluminum skin would be inadequate
> > > without its internal skeleton. Try folding an empty beer can. Its
> > > weakness is not just observable as proneness to denting.
> >
> > No, I'm saying that thin-wall aluminum frames are quite strong in the
> > ways that matter for a cyclist: they're stiff and resist being
> > compressed, flexed, or twisted.
>
> According to you dent resistance seems to matter, and according to
> you, it is an issue with thin wall aluminum frames.

Well, yes. It's the limit at which frames stop getting any thinner. But
frame walls are already very thin. For all practical purposes, the trend
in building frames is to make the tubes bigger and the walls thinner,
until the walls would be so thin that while the frame could withstand
the loads imposed by riding the bike, it wouldn't withstand frame tube
side-impacts, a likely occurence only when the bike isn't being normally
ridden. I used the Norco VPS as an example of this: a bike which has a
reputation for extreme strength in service, but has frame walls so thin
that they can be dented fairly easily.

To put it another way, once you get the bike's frame tubes so thin that
you can't go any thinner because they will dent too easily, then suppose
you wanted to add material to the tubes to make the frame stronger. The
greatest strength gain for a set amount of added frame material would
come from keeping the wall thickness constant but making the tube
bigger. if you just made the walls thicker, the thick-wall tube would
not be as strong as the larger-diameter tube.

This is the abstract view, and things get slightly complicated on real
bikes because of issues like butted tubing and non-round tubes. But the
essential point that wall thickness is vastly less important than tube
diameter (and that the primary limits on wall thickness in practice have
more to do with load considerations that don't happen while the bike is
being ridden) remains.

> > The arrangement of tubes on a UCI-legal
> > bicycle is largely fixed: there is little leeway for one design to have
> > a more rigid arrangement of tubes than another, for the same material in
> > the same dimensions.
>
> So? That is completely irrelevant. My point is that the design, which
> you say is mandated by the UCI, provides the strength for a bicycle
> frame. Imagine one of your thin wall aluminum frames without a top
> tube or down tube. It has almost not strength at all. It would
> collapse like an empty beer can.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with frame wall thickness, or even
material. If you removed the top tube or down tube from my lugged steel
Pinarello, it would also collapse like an empty beer can. If it lasted
any longer, it would be overdesigned. Granted, a steel frame might do
some pretty impressive bending into new shapes before it failed. But
then, a fancy aero aluminum frame with no top tube might survive just as
long, or longer, depending on the shape of the down tube and how good
the head tube weld was. It is left as an exercise for the reader why
this might be so.

> > Dent resistance isn't part of what happens to a
> > bike when it gets ridden, but bikes need some dent-resistance so they
> > don't get dented when not being ridden, especially since dents in round
> > tubes (or in the wrong place on any tube) greatly compromise strength.
>
> Dent resistance is a function of tube strength. A tube that will dent
> easily will fold easily if it is not braced.

No, that is categorically wrong. A tube that will dent easily may well
be extraordinarily hard to fold, as long as nobody has already dented
it. You can test this for yourself: take a cardboard paper towel roll
core, and do a little load test on it whereby you hang weight on the top
of it until it folds. Now do the test a second time on this pre-dented
tube, or if you fear it may compromise the experiment, on a second,
identical, but pre-dented cardboard tube. The second tube will hold much
less load before folding.

Better yet, test this with the tube in compression, since that's typical
of the loads on a top tube.

These experiments will demonstrate that dents precede and precipitate
tube collapse.

You seem to be arguing that a tube that can be easily dented will fold
if not braced. That is only true at the very extreme of tube wall
thickness, a realm which bike tubes don't enter, but only because they
start to get dented. If they didn't get dented by ordinary wear and
tear, they could be even thinner.

> > Empty beer cans do fold easily, but they don't need dent resistance at
> > that point in their life, and their walls are less than .013" thick.
>
> Exactly.

But even so, they're extraordinarily strong for their weight!

> > Internal gusseting can
> > make any design stronger, but for a given weight, it's not the way to
> > go, since you can get more strength (at least against torsional and
> > bending loads) by making the cylinder diameter larger.
>
> Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result of
> the can's pressurized contents.

Yes, but full beer cans are really heavy! They contain over a half-pound
of beer. I could make your bike (almost any bike) stronger by filling
the tubes with liquid, but the bike would be stupidly heavy. The beer
has to be there, and you can't reduce its weight or volume, so the
strength it adds to the structure is essentially free of engineering
trade-offs. There is no comparable amount of "free" weight or structure
in the design of a bike frame.

> Bike frames have external gusseting- the frame structue itself.

That's not external gusseting of the tubes. Indeed, I don't even know
what you are talking about. A conventional non-lugged bike frame is one
of the least-gusseted structures in common use. It's nothing but tubes
butt-welded to each other.

> > An aircraft's skin is a stressed structure, a "monocoque" design.
> > One important function the inner frame
> > provides is a place to mount interior fittings. Meanwhile the important
> > job of keeping the aircraft from twisting, flexing, or folding is done
> > mostly by the exterior skin, not the inner frame.
>
> That's absurd. It's a combination of both the frame and the skin.

Sure, but the frame is like the beer in a beer can. Since it has to be
there to keep the innards of the airplane in place anyways, clever
engineering can take advantage of that structure to make the outer
airframe even lighter.

> > > Strength is a function of both tube diameter and tube wall thickness,
> > > not to mention alloy and heat treatment properties.
> >
> > It is, but the former completely dwarfs the latter, and the last two
> > aren't part of this discussion.
>
> Yes they are.

No they aren't. All conventional materials are going to have the same
strength relationship between tube diameter and wall thickness. If I
made a bicycle out of hollow wood (or preferably, plastic, since it
would remove the dicey issues of grain and materials consistency), I
would still build a stronger frame for a given weight of material by
making the tubes thinner and bigger right up to the point where they
didn't withstand ordinary wear and tear.

> > It's a positive attribute of a design which has other more important
> > advantages: threadless stems have no quill to seize or invisibly bulge
> > the steer tube. As several have already noted, these advantages are not
> > enough that most of us need to rush out and change our headsets, but all
> > things being equal, threadless is preferable.
>
> Speak for yourself. While I think the threadless-type stems look cool,
> I think that adjustibility trumps looks and a small weight advantage.
> Even someone getting a custom built bike might at some time want to
> change the handlebar height without having to go out and buy a new
> stem.

Then choose your steer-tube cut judiciously. It's nothing to put a
couple of cm of spacers under your stem and then choose a stem
accordingly. As long as you make that choice up front, you can have lots
of bar-height adjustment without changing your stem. Not to mention that
any non-zero-rise stem automatically offers two bar heights: normal, and
flipped over.

> > As for the adjustability issue, stem reach is at least as important as
> > stem height for establishing a proper fit, but nobody seems to mention
> > that if anything, it is much easier to change out a threadless stem for
> > one of different reach than it is to change many threaded stems, since a
> > threaded stem without much excess cable may require detaching cables to
> > fully remove the stem.
>
> Now this is a good point. However, a properly fitted bike should have
> the right reach stem on it, or have to be changed only once, unless
> your arms grow. We have seen from the comments here that lowering the
> bars as conditioning improves is a common practice. It used to be a
> standard practice for someone taking up cycling as a serious sport.
> It's no longer an easy recommendation to make to a novice.

The reason people lower bars is because it is easy. A lot of time these
riders may not be optimizing their position either from an aerodynamic
or power-generating point of view, because they don't bother changing
the stem reach. I raised this point about the non-adjustability of a
quill stem half in jest, but mainly to make the point that a single
quill stem will not provide a complete set of fit options for one rider,
and only a little more (at most) than one threadless stem will.

> > If you're trying to get your
> > handlebars into the right position by adjusting the height without
> > changing the reach, you're just trying to get an ill-fitting bike into
> > the least-worst position!
>
> Not at all! The stem reach is as fundamental to sizing a bike as seat
> tube height, maybe more so since the saddle height is adjustable. Get
> the reach right and then tweak the height as your fitness and needs
> require. Many people clearly have a requirement to change the height
> within the parameters of a stem wit a proper reach.

The only reason we fit stem reach (as opposed to height) as the
"fundamental" is because it is hard to change the reach after: you have
to buy a new stem. Height allows fine-tuning of the pre-set reach if you
like, but the real goal is to get both adjustments correct in one shot.

I daresay that a serious rider would benefit from changes of stem reach
at the same time as the stem height was changed in some cases, but we'll
never know, because the tyranny of the nonadjustable-reach quill stem
keeps us ignorant! :)

Seriously, that's a trivial detail issue.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Hugh Fenton
August 26th 03, 07:12 AM
> >
> > Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result of
> > the can's pressurized contents.
>
> Yes, but full beer cans are really heavy! They contain over a half-pound
> of beer. I could make your bike (almost any bike) stronger by filling
> the tubes with liquid, but the bike would be stupidly heavy. The beer
> has to be there, and you can't reduce its weight or volume, so the
> strength it adds to the structure is essentially free of engineering
> trade-offs. There is no comparable amount of "free" weight or structure
> in the design of a bike frame.
>

Has anyone ever tried a pressurised frametubes......but with Nitrogen, not
beer!
Following this thread it seems that if tube denting was the limiting factor
it would make a difference. Sort of like prestressed concrete in reverse as
its buckling not tension we're worried about.

Though come to think of it I'm surprised I've never seen a bike where the
seattube was the waterbottle - probably a better idea than beer I guess

Hugh Fenton

Qui si parla Campagnolo
August 26th 03, 02:10 PM
basjan-<< Now I must admit, I thought Italian
BB's were superior too, >><BR><BR>

Sorry, not saying that Italian is 'superior', I'm saying that they are not
inferior. Both work, if done correctly and yes martha, I have seen more than a
few english BB cups loose.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Ryan Cousineau
August 26th 03, 03:28 PM
In article >,
"Hugh Fenton" > wrote:

> > >
> > > Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result of
> > > the can's pressurized contents.
> >
> > Yes, but full beer cans are really heavy! They contain over a half-pound
> > of beer. I could make your bike (almost any bike) stronger by filling
> > the tubes with liquid, but the bike would be stupidly heavy. The beer
> > has to be there, and you can't reduce its weight or volume, so the
> > strength it adds to the structure is essentially free of engineering
> > trade-offs. There is no comparable amount of "free" weight or structure
> > in the design of a bike frame.
> >
>
> Has anyone ever tried a pressurised frametubes......but with Nitrogen, not
> beer!
> Following this thread it seems that if tube denting was the limiting factor
> it would make a difference. Sort of like prestressed concrete in reverse as
> its buckling not tension we're worried about.

Close. Bianchi famously does foam-filled frame tubes, a very clever
idea. The problem is that even foam has some weight:

http://gianni.bianchiusa.com/2002/site/general/reparto/

> Though come to think of it I'm surprised I've never seen a bike where the
> seattube was the waterbottle - probably a better idea than beer I guess

Getting the seat tube close enough to your mouth to take a drink would
be tricky. How about an internally routed Camelbak in the top tube?
Heck, on a Norco VPS you could just fit an entire regular Camelbak
bladder into the monocoque.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

August 26th 03, 07:50 PM
Hugh Fenton writes:

>>> Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result
>>> of the can's pressurized contents.

>> Yes, but full beer cans are really heavy! They contain over a
>> half-pound of beer. I could make your bike (almost any bike)
>> stronger by filling the tubes with liquid, but the bike would be
>> stupidly heavy. The beer has to be there, and you can't reduce its
>> weight or volume, so the strength it adds to the structure is
>> essentially free of engineering trade-offs. There is no comparable
>> amount of "free" weight or structure in the design of a bike frame.

> Has anyone ever tried a pressurised frametubes......but with
> Nitrogen, not beer! Following this thread it seems that if tube
> denting was the limiting factor it would make a difference. Sort of
> like prestressed concrete in reverse as its buckling not tension
> we're worried about.

Well it ain't so. Those who re-cycle beverage cans know that thin
walled tubes (beer and soda cans) collapse axially easily with a
slight vertical thrust while standing on them. Bending a tube, such
loads are easily achieved. Sitting on the top tube of a bicycle
exerts such forces. The pressure in the tube (can), unless extremely
high, has little effect on such wrinkling. You can do this to a full
beer can easily by stomping on it. It just won't do more than get a
few wrinkles before liquid incompressibility arrests further collapse.
To prevent collapse, you could fill your frame with water.

What an idea!

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

David Kerber
August 26th 03, 08:18 PM
In article >,
says...
> Hugh Fenton writes:
>
> >>> Full beer cans have effective internal gusseting. It is a result
> >>> of the can's pressurized contents.
>
> >> Yes, but full beer cans are really heavy! They contain over a
> >> half-pound of beer. I could make your bike (almost any bike)
> >> stronger by filling the tubes with liquid, but the bike would be
> >> stupidly heavy. The beer has to be there, and you can't reduce its
> >> weight or volume, so the strength it adds to the structure is
> >> essentially free of engineering trade-offs. There is no comparable
> >> amount of "free" weight or structure in the design of a bike frame.
>
> > Has anyone ever tried a pressurised frametubes......but with
> > Nitrogen, not beer! Following this thread it seems that if tube
> > denting was the limiting factor it would make a difference. Sort of
> > like prestressed concrete in reverse as its buckling not tension
> > we're worried about.
>
> Well it ain't so. Those who re-cycle beverage cans know that thin
> walled tubes (beer and soda cans) collapse axially easily with a
> slight vertical thrust while standing on them. Bending a tube, such

Well, sort of. Have you ever tried the trick of standing on one foot
on an empty soda can, showing that it can hold your weight (190 lb in my
case), and then lightly tap the sides with your fingers, and it suddenly
collapses (on your fingers if you're not quick)? Demonstrates the effect
perfectly, that an undented thin-walled tube can support significant
loads, but the collapses at the slightest damage to the walls. It's a
fun demonstration to show your kids.

Of course, if you stomp on the can, you are imparting uneven or lateral
loads on it to initiate the buckling, so it collapses immediately.

.....

--

"Where was the ka-boom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering ka-
boom!"
- Marvin The Martian

David Damerell
August 27th 03, 02:48 PM
Peter Cole > wrote:
>"David Damerell" > wrote in message
>>I doubt it. I have ridden in Britain in all weathers for many years, and
>>only in the last couple of years acquired a cycling cape (which covers the
>>stem - even then, the bike is periodically parked in the rain). I've
>>never has a stuck quill stem.
>All of my bikes show rust inside the steertube. Perhaps it's accelerated by
>the salt compounds used to treat the roads here in New England,

Because the roads are never salted here? I think not.

It's not clear to me how a significant quantity of water carrying gunk
from the road surface could end up inside the steer tube, unless the bike
lacks a front mudguard.

>but such
>corrosion and stuck quills/seatposts seem to not be a strictly salted road
>phenomenon, judging from the posts here over the years.

I suspect it has nothing to do with salted roads, but everything to do
with the subset of riders who sweat onto the stem and headset.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

David Damerell
August 27th 03, 02:51 PM
Gary Young > wrote:
>David Damerell > wrote in message >...
>>[1] I still don't see how this happens - the head is usually at least
>>somewhat aft of the bars, and the apparent wind will blow droplets of
>>sweat to the rear. When I sweat enough that it cannot evaporate it hits
>>me on the knees, not on the headset!
>When I'm riding my road bike, my head is almost directly over the
>headset.

I looked and I see this is the case for me when riding in the drops - I
have my bars mounted quite high, so I ride in the drops most of the time
and in the hoods uphill, which I find most comfortable.

When climbing a steep hill there is little apparent wind, but then the
combination of riding in the hoods and the slope _has_ moved my head
definitely to the rear of the headset.

>You're right that apparent wind keeps the sweat away most of the time,
>but what about when you've made a hard effort on a hot day and then
>have to stop for a light?

If I'm going to be there for any length of time I let go of the bars and
stand upright.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

Bikefixr
August 28th 03, 04:24 AM
In my opinion, no real differences. Threadless makes adjustment easier, but a
well-adjusted threaded shoud never need adjustment. The real reason for the
whole threadless thing goes back to mountain-bikes. It was a huge inventory
pain in the ass to keep forks around with 5-9 steerer tube diameters/length
combinations. Imagine the bike companies needing hundreds of thousands of
forks, some 1 inch, some 1 1/8 inch, some 1 1/4'. Some threaded, some not. So
make them all the same diameter, 1 1/8 seemed about right, make them threadless
and then you only need 1 steerer tube ( long) and it could be trimmed to length
as needed. Then, convince the public that this is lighter, safer, cheaper and
better and they'll buy in. By the way, it generally isn't lighter, costs about
the same to us ( though is cheaper for the manufacturers). is easier to set up
and adjust. So it wasn't all bad. But on road bikes? Answers a question nobody
asked. But it did make it easier on shops not having to stock 8 different
lengths of each carbon replacement fork. 1 long one was enough.

James Thomson
August 28th 03, 06:17 AM
"David Damerell" > wrote:

> Well, I'm not disputing that most of the quill stems that
> came with bikes are just as pointlessly low as the threadless
> equivalents that come with bikes now...

I didn't think for a moment that you were: you were clearly saying that an
unusual A-head stem would be needed to put your bars where your unusual
quill stem now puts them.

The fact that some quill stems and some threadless steerers are too short
to allow some riders to find their favoured position is an argument for
providing longer-quilled stems for those who require them, and supplying
threadless forks with long, uncut steerers. It has little to do with the
relative merits of the two systems.

James Thomson

Mike S.
August 28th 03, 07:43 AM
"Bikefixr" > wrote in message
...
> In my opinion, no real differences. Threadless makes adjustment easier,
but a
> well-adjusted threaded shoud never need adjustment. The real reason for
the
> whole threadless thing goes back to mountain-bikes. It was a huge
inventory
> pain in the ass to keep forks around with 5-9 steerer tube
diameters/length
> combinations. Imagine the bike companies needing hundreds of thousands of
> forks, some 1 inch, some 1 1/8 inch, some 1 1/4'. Some threaded, some not.
So
> make them all the same diameter, 1 1/8 seemed about right, make them
threadless
> and then you only need 1 steerer tube ( long) and it could be trimmed to
length
> as needed. Then, convince the public that this is lighter, safer, cheaper
and
> better and they'll buy in. By the way, it generally isn't lighter, costs
about
> the same to us ( though is cheaper for the manufacturers). is easier to
set up
> and adjust. So it wasn't all bad. But on road bikes? Answers a question
nobody
> asked. But it did make it easier on shops not having to stock 8 different
> lengths of each carbon replacement fork. 1 long one was enough.

Used to be that one long steerer steel fork was good to keep around for an
emergency. Then all you had to do is thread down to the right length and
cut. Voila! Instant custom length fork steerer.

Mike

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home