TTL: The key measurement in sizing

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
you have to move up or down a size or start looking at different
geometries.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
> geometries.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.

Joseph

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 29, 4:01*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> > bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> > length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> > the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> > can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> > except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> > irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> > between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> > the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> > between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> > predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> > you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
> > geometries.
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.
>
> Joseph

Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 6:04*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:01*pm, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> > > bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> > > length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> > > the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> > > can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> > > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > > and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> > > except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> > > irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> > > between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> > > the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> > > between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> > > predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> > > you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
> > > geometries.
>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.
>
> > Joseph
>
> Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

A-Headset is way better than you make it out to be. Stiff bar, and
easy to adjust without any big wrenches. Who cares about weight, it's
just stonger. The dumb thing is when people cut off too much steerer!

But even quill stems have a limited adjustment range, so stack-height
needs to be taken into consideration. Not only for being able to get
the bars high enough, but also low enough! Think about that crazy cafe
racer hour record bike!

By stack-height I mean the overall height range of where the bars can
be placed relative to the bb or seat. Not just how much steerer is
showing.

Joseph

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> [...]
> Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct here:
<http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html>.

> BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > wrote:

> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
> >
> I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct here:
> <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html>.
>
> > BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> > even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> > was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> > against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> > Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> > called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> > obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> > crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> > purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> > fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> > mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> > words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> > their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> > ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> > aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
> >
> Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

frou frou.
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frou-frou>

--
Michael Press

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 30, 3:26*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct here:
> <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html>.

Adam Smith told us in the same year as the American Republic was
founded that "engineers never congregate but to conspire against the
pockets of their fellow cyclists".

> > BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> > even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> > was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> > against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> > Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> > called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> > obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> > crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> > purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> > fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> > mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> > words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> > their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> > ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> > aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
> Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

Exactly. A man is known as much for what he doesn't praise as what he
condemns. I merely expressed surprise that you not react more strongly
than silent disapproval to these wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
fads.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

[landotter]

On Apr 29, 9:26 pm, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct here:
> <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html>.
>
>
>
> > BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> > even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> > was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> > against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> > Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> > called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> > obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> > crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> > purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> > fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> > mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> > words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> > their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> > ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> > aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
> Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?
>
I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
Good stuff, especially for those on tour.

[Clive George]

"landotter" > wrote in message
...

> I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
> states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
> wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
> that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
> present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
> hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
> a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
> Good stuff, especially for those on tour.

That's why I like them too - no need for a clunky headset spanner (or two),
no tedious adjusting of locknuts. And no need to hit the expander bolt
either :-)

The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.

Of course the move to bigger headsets has rendered it largely academic -
although 1 1/8" quills exist AFAIK, what proportion of the world use them?

(question : Is Mike Burrows a hero for designing Chris Boardman's 'Lotus'
bike and the windcheetah (holder of the E2E record here), or a demon because
he introduced the 'compact' geometry idea via Giant?)

cheers,
clive

[Camilo]

I agree that top tube length should be the "advertised size" as
opposed to seat tube for the reasons that Andre mentioned.

However, I also agree on the basic principle that stack height (head
tube +) is very important. Regardless of whether the threadless
steerer / stem is a conspiracy or a better system - OR - if it's
merely aesthetics, I'm finding that a lot of common and popular frame
designs just don't allow high enough handlebars without a goofy high
angle stem or an extender. Maybe the long shafted quill stem would be
better at making this adjustment, but it would still be limited and
one would still have to consider head tube length or stack height.

That said, regardless of whether the threadless stem is a good thing
or a bad thing, saying " Nah, stack height is just another parasite
foisted on cyclists by the entire racing-fashion-
onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore paradigm and the wretched A-
head stems that came with it." is just not helpful. Note I'm not
saying it's not true, but the reality is that if you go to buy a bike
these days, it will have a threadless fork/steerer and you have to
deal with it.

Myself, I love the looks of a classic frame - thin tubes, beautifully
sculpted quill stem, unobtrusive rims and spokes. But I also like the
look of modern frames and wheels (to an extent) and do think there are
some real advantages to modern designs.

[Camilo]

On Apr 30, 9:53 am, "Clive George" > wrote:

> The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.

This is something that, in retrospect, I always think: DUH, why
haven't they always made quill stems with detachable faceplates. It
seems just so stupid not to.

Maybe its some engineering thing? Maybe they never thought of it?
Maybe it's the elegant smooth line with the discrete single bolt
underneath? Maybe it's because, in general, you just don't need to
remove the bars that often?

I tell you though, if/when I get to build a nice classic bike w/ quill
stem, I'm going with one of the many modern stems with detachable face
plate. I've seen some beautiful quills with that design.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 30, 6:53 pm, "Clive George" > wrote:
> "landotter" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
> > states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
> > wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
> > that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
> > present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
> > hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
> > a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
> > Good stuff, especially for those on tour.
>
> That's why I like them too - no need for a clunky headset spanner (or two),
> no tedious adjusting of locknuts. And no need to hit the expander bolt
> either :-)

I think my headset/pedal spanner bolted behind a water bottle rather
makes me look like a serious tourist.

> The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.

My quills all do have them. You're a bit behind the times, Clive. Even
the standard Kalloy quill now has a faceplate, or maybe a couple of
steps up from the bottom of their list, but certainly they're found as
original equipment on some bikes.

> Of course the move to bigger headsets has rendered it largely academic -
> although 1 1/8" quills exist AFAIK, what proportion of the world use them?

I do, and I make up a very proportion of my universe.

> (question : Is Mike Burrows a hero for designing Chris Boardman's 'Lotus'
> bike and the windcheetah (holder of the E2E record here), or a demon because
> he introduced the 'compact' geometry idea via Giant?)

For the design of Chris Boardman's bike, I (and I suspect Joseph, who
shares my delight in these extraordinarily striking and memorable
sporting achievements) will magnanimously overlook Mr Burrows' less
salubrious activities. Not even your friend Ed Dolan is perfect all
the way through.

> cheers,
> clive

I though you killfiled me, feller. Isn't it high time that you did, to
save your blood pressure?

Andre Jute
149/75

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 30, 7:43*pm, Camilo > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:53 am, "Clive George" > wrote:
>
> > The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> > that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> > intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.
>
> This is something that, in retrospect, I always think: DUH, why
> haven't they always made quill stems with detachable faceplates. *It
> seems just so stupid not to.
>
> Maybe its some engineering thing? *Maybe they never thought of it?
> Maybe it's the elegant smooth line with the discrete single bolt
> underneath? *Maybe it's because, in general, you just don't need to
> remove the bars that often?
>
> I tell you though, if/when I get to build a nice classic bike w/ quill
> stem, I'm going with one of the many modern stems with detachable face
> plate. I've seen some beautiful quills with that design.

Also some rather crude. The Kalloy-sourced quill with faceplate on my
Trek L700 Navigator isn't exactly Faberge workmanship -- nor even
Nitto, by a very long chalk. But it works. I understand why Trek fits
the Kalloy: a beautiful quill will cost five or ten times as much, and
possibly much more once the difference is multiplied up the
distribution chain, and add nothing to the functionality of the bike,
and many of the owners won't even notice.

Please tell me the names of the beautiful quills, especially they're
tall and available in 1 1/8 inch size, and I will buy one to make my
bike a little more pleasing. Something toollessly adjustable, as the
beautiful but custom 1in quill on my Gazelle Toulouse is, would be a
bonus, for the days when I desire to put the handlebars down for a bit
of motor pacing, or when I let others try the Trek.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 30, 7:37*pm, Camilo > wrote:
> I agree that top tube length should be the "advertised size" as
> opposed to seat tube for the reasons that Andre mentioned.
>
> However, I also agree on the basic principle that stack height (head
> tube +) is very important. *Regardless of whether the threadless
> steerer / stem is a conspiracy or a better system - OR - if it's
> merely aesthetics, I'm finding that a lot of common and popular frame
> designs just don't allow high enough handlebars without a goofy high
> angle stem or an extender. *Maybe the long shafted quill stem would be
> better at making this adjustment, but it would still be limited and
> one would still have to consider head tube length or stack height.

Do you think people are now a different shape, or sit differently, or
just expect more testicular clearance over the seat tube? Or what has
cause head tubes/stack height to shrink so from the days when boys
were boys and Raleigh roadsters were the norm -- and fitted.
>
> That said, regardless of whether the threadless stem is a good thing
> or a bad thing, saying " Nah, stack height is just another parasite
> foisted on cyclists by the entire racing-fashion-
> onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore paradigm and the wretched A-
> head stems that came with it." is just not helpful. *Note I'm not
> saying it's not true, but the reality is that if you go to buy a bike
> these days, it will have a threadless fork/steerer and you have to
> deal with it.

Actually, the last two bikes I bought had quills as standard fittings,
and so did the last two bikes I was given. The last time I bought a
bike with an threadless headset was in the early 1990s. From where I'm
standing, it looks like the quill is making a comeback. (Ignorance is
bliss, and other statistics!)

> Myself, I love the looks of a classic frame - thin tubes, beautifully
> sculpted quill stem, unobtrusive rims and spokes. *But I also like the
> look of modern frames and wheels (to an extent) and do think there are
> some real advantages to modern designs.

Mmm. I deliberately bought my Gazelle Toulouse as the very restrained
classical style (though in ali rather than steel) just when they made
the next year's model overtly sporting -- and never regretted the
decision to buy the "obsolete" model; even the wheels are restrained.
But I must say that I do love the beautiful wheels Keith Bontrager
designed specifically for my Trek "Smover", and which are now on a lot
of other bikes; you might say I bought the bike to get those wheels (I
bought it for the groupset, intending to throw the frame away, but
then it turned out to a super frame even if the inyerface styling is
way over the top for an automatic city bike, and a pretty good parts
set, so I kept everything except the unsuitable racing saddle). Even
if eventually I carry on with my plan to have a lugged stainless bike
built those wheels are going with me to the new bike, no question
about it. Those wheels make a great Trek better still. I just cannot
conceive of ever again not having those wheels on my daily bike.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Clive George]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 30, 6:53 pm, "Clive George" > wrote:
>> "landotter" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
>> > states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
>> > wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
>> > that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
>> > present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
>> > hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
>> > a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
>> > Good stuff, especially for those on tour.
>>
>> That's why I like them too - no need for a clunky headset spanner (or
>> two),
>> no tedious adjusting of locknuts. And no need to hit the expander bolt
>> either :-)
>
> I think my headset/pedal spanner bolted behind a water bottle rather
> makes me look like a serious tourist.

If it's accompanied by 4 panniers and a petrol bottle, maybe. Personally I
reckon it probably makes you look like a funny old man on a funny bike -
nowt wrong with that, but you should accept it rather than having delusions.

>> The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely
>> tradition
>> that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's
>> no
>> intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.
>
> My quills all do have them. You're a bit behind the times, Clive. Even
> the standard Kalloy quill now has a faceplate, or maybe a couple of
> steps up from the bottom of their list, but certainly they're found as
> original equipment on some bikes.

Perusal of bike retailers websites will demonstrate that front loading is
still dominant for quills.

>> Of course the move to bigger headsets has rendered it largely academic -
>> although 1 1/8" quills exist AFAIK, what proportion of the world use
>> them?
>
> I do, and I make up a very proportion of my universe.

We know. It shows. The total perspective vortex could be a good thing for
you - and we know you don't have Zaphod's getout.

>> (question : Is Mike Burrows a hero for designing Chris Boardman's 'Lotus'
>> bike and the windcheetah (holder of the E2E record here), or a demon
>> because
>> he introduced the 'compact' geometry idea via Giant?)
>
> For the design of Chris Boardman's bike, I (and I suspect Joseph, who
> shares my delight in these extraordinarily striking and memorable
> sporting achievements) will magnanimously overlook Mr Burrows' less
> salubrious activities.

> Not even your friend Ed Dolan is perfect all
> the way through.

What are you talking about?

> I though you killfiled me, feller.

Why would you think such a thing? Just because you talk tosh a significant
proportion of the time, filling in most of the rest with gratuitous insult,
doesn't actually mean you need killfiling to be ignored.

clive

[Michael Press]

In article <ttadnXlYg9rLL4XVnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@plusnet>,
"Clive George" > wrote:

> The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.

Depends what intrinsic means.
This old Cinelli stem of mine would lose its appeal.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Andre Jute > wrote:

> Actually, the last two bikes I bought had quills as standard fittings,
> and so did the last two bikes I was given. The last time I bought a
> bike with an threadless headset was in the early 1990s. From where I'm
> standing, it looks like the quill is making a comeback. (Ignorance is
> bliss, and other statistics!)

The steel threadless steer tube and clamp-on stem is a
better engineering solution than the threaded steer tube
and expanding quill. It really is better. That said the
threaded steer tube and quill stem works well enough
unless your riding and maintenance habits lead to the
expander expanding through oxidation, welding the quill
and steer tube and expanding the steer tube itself. There
is no reason to rag on the new system.

--
Michael Press

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Apr 30, 3:26 am, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
>>> entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
>>> paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
>>> traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
>>> require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>> I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct here:
>> <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html>.
>
> Adam Smith told us in the same year as the American Republic was
> founded that "engineers never congregate but to conspire against the
> pockets of their fellow cyclists".
>
Adam Smith said that after being threatened by lawyers in the employ of
marketers.

>>> BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
>>> even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
>>> was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
>>> against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
>>> Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
>>> called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
>>> obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
>>> crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
>>> purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
>>> fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
>>> mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
>>> words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
>>> their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
>>> ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
>>> aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>> Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?
>
> Exactly. A man is known as much for what he doesn't praise as what he
> condemns. I merely expressed surprise that you not react more strongly
> than silent disapproval to these wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
> fads.
>
Why spend time stating the obvious?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Ron Ruff]

On Apr 29, 6:41*am, Andre Jute > wrote:
> So the important dimension
> for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> and that is top tube length.

No. Seat tube length *is* irrelevant, but the top tube length is not a
good reach measurement since it varies with seat tube angle. What you
want is the distance from the bottom bracket forward, since your seat
fore/aft and height measurements will be referenced to the BB. This is
the "reach" measurement. And the relative height measurement is
approximated pretty well by the length of the head tube.

Oddly enough, if you work out the geometries of common frames you will
find that it is easy to get the saddle and and bars in *exactly* the
same position over a range of frame sizes of ~10cm or so... simply by
choosing and adjusting the appropriate seatpost and stem.

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> you have to move up or down a size or start looking at different
> geometries.
>
> Andre Jute
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

Summary:

"Top Tube Length: More Important Than Seat Tube Length!"

[[email protected]]

What "big wrenches". Every quill stem I've seem has an allen or other
nut that is loosened to raise bar hight. Ahead system sucks plain and
simple. If bike makers left steer tubes uncut I might feel different
but since most ship bikes with the steer tubes cut I'll continue
tocriticize bike makers for this disregard for consumers. It takes
minutes to cut a steer tube and a shop can do it AFTER a customer
finds the right height for his/her comfort. Then EVERYONE wins.


On Apr 29, 4:53*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:04*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 4:01*pm, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > > I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> > > > bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> > > > length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> > > > the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> > > > can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> > > > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > > > and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> > > > except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> > > > irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> > > > between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> > > > the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> > > > between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> > > > predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> > > > you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
> > > > geometries.
>
> > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING..html
>
> > > Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.
>
> > > Joseph
>
> > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> > BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> > even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> > was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> > against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> > Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> > called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> > obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> > crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> > purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> > fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> > mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> > words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> > their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> > ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> > aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> A-Headset is way better than you make it out to be. Stiff bar, and
> easy to adjust without any big wrenches. Who cares about weight, it's
> just stonger. The dumb thing is when people cut off too much steerer!
>
> But even quill stems have a limited adjustment range, so stack-height
> needs to be taken into consideration. Not only for being able to get
> the bars high enough, but also low enough! Think about that crazy cafe
> racer hour record bike!
>
> By stack-height I mean the overall height range of where the bars can
> be placed relative to the bb or seat. Not just how much steerer is
> showing.
>
> Joseph- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Camilo]

On Apr 30, 1:54 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:43 pm, Camilo > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:53 am, "Clive George" > wrote:
>
> > > The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> > > that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> > > intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.
>
> > This is something that, in retrospect, I always think: DUH, why
> > haven't they always made quill stems with detachable faceplates. It
> > seems just so stupid not to.
>
> > Maybe its some engineering thing? Maybe they never thought of it?
> > Maybe it's the elegant smooth line with the discrete single bolt
> > underneath? Maybe it's because, in general, you just don't need to
> > remove the bars that often?
>
> > I tell you though, if/when I get to build a nice classic bike w/ quill
> > stem, I'm going with one of the many modern stems with detachable face
> > plate. I've seen some beautiful quills with that design.
>
> Also some rather crude. The Kalloy-sourced quill with faceplate on my
> Trek L700 Navigator isn't exactly Faberge workmanship -- nor even
> Nitto, by a very long chalk. But it works. I understand why Trek fits
> the Kalloy: a beautiful quill will cost five or ten times as much, and
> possibly much more once the difference is multiplied up the
> distribution chain, and add nothing to the functionality of the bike,
> and many of the owners won't even notice.
>
> Please tell me the names of the beautiful quills, especially they're
> tall and available in 1 1/8 inch size,

I have no idea if quill stems are available in 1 1/8. For interesting
quill stems with face plates, two that come to mind off hand are Salsa
and Cinelli (Frog).

[SMS]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

I saw three different adjustable height and angle threadless stems at
Taipei Cycle, none of which are sold in the U.S.. So at least there is a
workaround to what the manufacturers have foisted on the public. Buy
these at any bike shop in Europe or Asia.

At least some manufacturers are not cutting the steer tube to the
shortest possible length. I have one of those stupid Delta extenders on
the one bike I have with a threadless headset. It looks terrible, but it
does the job.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
wrote:

> What "big wrenches". Every quill stem I've seem has an allen or other
> nut that is loosened to raise bar hight. Ahead system sucks plain and
> simple. If bike makers left steer tubes uncut I might feel different
> but since most ship bikes with the steer tubes cut I'll continue
> tocriticize bike makers for this disregard for consumers. It takes
> minutes to cut a steer tube and a shop can do it AFTER a customer
> finds the right height for his/her comfort. Then EVERYONE wins.

> > A-Headset is way better than you make it out to be. Stiff bar, and
> > easy to adjust without any big wrenches. Who cares about weight, it's
> > just stonger. The dumb thing is when people cut off too much steerer!

Big Jim: the big (headset) wrenches are necessary for adjusting the
bearing preload on a threaded (quill stem) headset.

The wrenches are typically in the 30-40 mm range, and they have to be
very thin because the headset nut they are turning is very thin and
directly underneath the lockring.

The lockring also requires a big wrench, but it doesn't have to be flat,
so a fairly large adjustable wrench will do the trick.

The headset preload adjustment is moderately fussy and the locknut is
somewhat prone to loosening anyway. Loc-tite may be called for.

The setup of a new threadless setup does have its own fussiness (the
initial star-nut installation is easiest with a special nut-setter), but
bearing adjustment is faster, simpler, and requires only a few hex
wrenches. Pulling and reinstalling an already set-up fork to lube the
bearings or whatnot is easier with a threadless headset.

The adjustment stuff is not a compelling reason to change headsets, but
having just experienced my first fully frozen quill stem, I have a new
appreciation for the merits of the threadless design.

BTW, those looking for an adjustable threadless stem?

http://www.glorycycles.com/loerhscst.html

Look Ergostem.

It's $200, yes. The usual purpose is to allow precise bar positioning
for TT or track bikes, and it is highly adjustable for reach, rise, and
drop.

It also weighs 360g, which may explain why you don't see it on the
climber's bikes.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 1, 5:59*pm, Ron Ruff > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:41*am, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > So the important dimension
> > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > and that is top tube length.
>
> No. Seat tube length *is* irrelevant, but the top tube length is not a
> good reach measurement since it varies with seat tube angle. What you
> want is the distance from the bottom bracket forward, since your seat
> fore/aft and height measurements will be referenced to the BB. This is
> the "reach" measurement. And the relative height measurement is
> approximated pretty well by the length of the head tube.

Sure thing, Ron, I'm happy to spend a Sunday morning in your church
too, doing bike trigonometry. My point is merely that with many modern
bikes, how you sit the rider on the bike has little to do with the
seat tube length and everything with the distance and angle of the
grips from the seat. I don't actually care what you find convenient to
use in calculating that distance and angle.

> Oddly enough, if you work out the geometries of common frames you will
> find that it is easy to get the saddle and and bars in *exactly* the
> same position over a range of frame sizes of ~10cm or so... simply by
> choosing and adjusting the appropriate seatpost and stem.

I must say I have found it convenient, in a sturdy mountain-bike type
frame at least (where the stiffness seems to be guaranteed by the size
and beef of the ail tubes), to go down one size (2mm, not 2in!) from
the traditional size, and adjust to the desired fit with a longer
seat post and a very upright North Road type handlebar. Several
European dealers told me they now advise people on comfort bikes to
take one size down from the obvious fit.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 1, 11:02 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> > bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> > length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> > the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> > can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> > except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> > irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> > between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> > the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> > between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> > predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> > you have to move up or down a size or start looking at different
> > geometries.
>
> > Andre Jute
> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html
>
> Summary:
>
> "Top Tube Length: More Important Than Seat Tube Length!"

Thanks. I saw that when Sheldon first posted it, and just forgot, or
otherwise I would just have given the URL. Mind you, this has been an
interesting thread, and therefore worth a little duplication.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 2, 1:31 am, wrote:
> What "big wrenches". Every quill stem I've seem has an allen or other
> nut that is loosened to raise bar hight.

Not for the quill itself. The big wrench(es), usually 32 or 36mm, are
required for setting the threaded heatset up with the right
"tightness" in its ballbearing, and locking it down with another nut.
Park makes two special small wrenches 36x15mm and 32x15mm intended for
tourists to bolt to their bikes as threaded headset/pedal tools; they
bolt between the water bottle cage and the frame. Shimano's Nexus hub
gear axle nuts are also 15mm, so I would carry this tool in any event.
Many old fashioned threaded headsets require two big spanners to work
on the headset, one of them usually required to be pretty flat, but my
Trek Navigator L700 Cyber Nexus bike uses an interesting design by VP,
the MH-306AC threaded 1 1/8in headset, which uses only one size
spanner for both adjuster- and lock-nuts. By the way, if you check out
my Trek automatic bike via the URL under my netsite, take a close look
at those inoffensive, in fact bland-looking, pedals. They're VP-191
and Trek Benelux made me a gift of a set -- they're not standard until
you get into the Koga-Miyata price range; they are absolutely fabulous
pedals, silky-smooth.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html


>Ahead system sucks plain and
> simple. If bike makers left steer tubes uncut I might feel different
> but since most ship bikes with the steer tubes cut I'll continue
> tocriticize bike makers for this disregard for consumers. It takes
> minutes to cut a steer tube and a shop can do it AFTER a customer
> finds the right height for his/her comfort. Then EVERYONE wins.
>
> On Apr 29, 4:53 pm, "
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 6:04 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 4:01 pm, "
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Apr 29, 2:41 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
> > > > > bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
> > > > > length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
> > > > > the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
> > > > > can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
> > > > > for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
> > > > > and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
> > > > > except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
> > > > > irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
> > > > > between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
> > > > > the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
> > > > > between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
> > > > > predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
> > > > > you have to move up or down a size or start looking at different
> > > > > geometries.
>
> > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > > > Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.
>
> > > > Joseph
>
> > > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> > > BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
> > > even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
> > > was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
> > > against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
> > > Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
> > > called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
> > > obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
> > > crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
> > > purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
> > > fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
> > > mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
> > > words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
> > > their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
> > > ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
> > > aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.
>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > A-Headset is way better than you make it out to be. Stiff bar, and
> > easy to adjust without any big wrenches. Who cares about weight, it's
> > just stonger. The dumb thing is when people cut off too much steerer!
>
> > But even quill stems have a limited adjustment range, so stack-height
> > needs to be taken into consideration. Not only for being able to get
> > the bars high enough, but also low enough! Think about that crazy cafe
> > racer hour record bike!
>
> > By stack-height I mean the overall height range of where the bars can
> > be placed relative to the bb or seat. Not just how much steerer is
> > showing.
>
> > Joseph- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 2, 3:15 am, Camilo > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 1:54 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 7:43 pm, Camilo > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 30, 9:53 am, "Clive George" > wrote:
>
> > > > The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
> > > > that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
> > > > intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.
>
> > > This is something that, in retrospect, I always think: DUH, why
> > > haven't they always made quill stems with detachable faceplates. It
> > > seems just so stupid not to.
>
> > > Maybe its some engineering thing? Maybe they never thought of it?
> > > Maybe it's the elegant smooth line with the discrete single bolt
> > > underneath? Maybe it's because, in general, you just don't need to
> > > remove the bars that often?
>
> > > I tell you though, if/when I get to build a nice classic bike w/ quill
> > > stem, I'm going with one of the many modern stems with detachable face
> > > plate. I've seen some beautiful quills with that design.
>
> > Also some rather crude. The Kalloy-sourced quill with faceplate on my
> > Trek L700 Navigator isn't exactly Faberge workmanship -- nor even
> > Nitto, by a very long chalk. But it works. I understand why Trek fits
> > the Kalloy: a beautiful quill will cost five or ten times as much, and
> > possibly much more once the difference is multiplied up the
> > distribution chain, and add nothing to the functionality of the bike,
> > and many of the owners won't even notice.
>
> > Please tell me the names of the beautiful quills, especially they're
> > tall and available in 1 1/8 inch size,
>
> I have no idea if quill stems are available in 1 1/8. For interesting
> quill stems with face plates, two that come to mind off hand are Salsa
> and Cinelli (Frog).

Thanks. I should probably say, "for a 1 1/8 in headset" to avoid
confusion with the still bigger headsets of the kamikaze set. -- Andre
Jute

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 2, 4:03*am, SMS > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
> > entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
> > paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
> > traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
> > require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.
>
> I saw three different adjustable height and angle threadless stems at
> Taipei Cycle, none of which are sold in the U.S.. So at least there is a
> workaround to what the manufacturers have foisted on the public. Buy
> these at any bike shop in Europe or Asia.

Despite the engineering advantages of the threadless headset, such as
they may be, I prefer threaded headsets and quills because they give a
bigger range of adjustment.

> At least some manufacturers are not cutting the steer tube to the
> shortest possible length.

I hope you aren't suggesting that we should now congratulate them
because they stopped being dickwads. Let them do something right
first, rather than merely stop doing something wrongheaded.

>I have one of those stupid Delta extenders on
> the one bike I have with a threadless headset. It looks terrible, but it
> does the job.

I can see a time when a threaded will come with various lengths of
extension tube reaching above the head tube, and threadless steerer
tubes will universally be uncut, and perhaps come with a clamp to hold
them, like a seat clamp (Sheldon has been there too!).

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[A Muzi]

> Andre Jute wrote:
>> Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
>> entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
>> paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
>> traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
>> require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

SMS wrote:
> I saw three different adjustable height and angle threadless stems at
> Taipei Cycle, none of which are sold in the U.S.. So at least there is a
> workaround to what the manufacturers have foisted on the public. Buy
> these at any bike shop in Europe or Asia.
>
> At least some manufacturers are not cutting the steer tube to the
> shortest possible length. I have one of those stupid Delta extenders on
> the one bike I have with a threadless headset. It looks terrible, but it
> does the job.

You said that once before and I commented then that these AH adjustable
stems are original equipment to commonly available modern road bikes
such as Raleighs, not expensive, exotic nor rare.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> [...]
> I must say I have found it convenient, in a sturdy mountain-bike type
> frame at least (where the stiffness seems to be guaranteed by the size
> and beef of the ail tubes), to go down one size (2mm, not 2in!) from
> the traditional size, and adjust to the desired fit with a longer
> seat post and a very upright North Road type handlebar. Several
> European dealers told me they now advise people on comfort bikes to
> take one size down from the obvious fit.
>
How much of a real difference can 2-mm in frame size make?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 3, 2:55*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > I must say I have found it convenient, in a sturdy mountain-bike type
> > frame at least (where the stiffness seems to be guaranteed by the size
> > and beef of the ail tubes), to go down one size (2mm, not 2in!) from
> > the traditional *size, and adjust to the desired fit with a longer
> > seat post and a very upright North Road type handlebar. Several
> > European dealers told me they now advise people on comfort bikes to
> > take one size down from the obvious fit.
>
> How much of a real difference can 2-mm in frame size make?

Some makers think a lot and therefore supply bikes at 2 or 3cm size
intervals, some are not impressed and supply bikes only at 5 or 6cm
intervals.

In this particular case that I have in mind, where it worked
brilliantly for me, there was also a switch between manufacturers. The
nominal 2cm difference on seat tube length is 3cm when measuring under
the same assumptions (hypothetically horizontal seat tube). But with
differences of design outlook and style working through into the
geometry and fittings, the effective reach distance (call it effective
seat tube length) differs between the bikes by 10cm. Now that is four
inches and makes a big difference. It is the difference which allowed
me to make a poorly conceived Trek *more comfortable* than a proper
Gazelle -- an amazing outcome in anyone's book.

So I think a quite small change in nominal size (specified as the
useless seat tube length) can make a big difference in how you set up
the bike, indeed in how you "can" set it up. For instance, if you
recover an ideal (in my case = desired, not what someone else
considers fashionable) seating position by altering the stem (height,
angle, length -- easily done on the adjustable quill stems fitted to
all my bikes) to put the handlebar clamp at a different position, you
change the steering response of the bike by altering the lever length
of the steering arm. On that particular, by itself, all other things
being equal, the smaller frame is a superior choice because the bigger
the frame the shorter the steering arm lever length will be set if the
purpose is, as it is in most instances, to have the rider sit more
upright. (Of course, one of the things threadless headsets and stems
do, to a large extent, is to remove this sort of choice from the hands
of the consumer.)

Also, when one speaks to several experienced dealers in four or five
different countries, and there is a clear consensus of reasoned
opinion, it is worth reporting here. This is the place for an exchange
of opinions, yes?

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html