Why would a jump bike be better off with a steel stem?

It's generally easier to engineer a very strong stem out of steel than aluminum, because steel is much stronger as a material. Aluminum is often useful to build a sufficiently strong product for whatever application, and at lighter weight. But for a jump bike, you're subjecting the bike to very high forces, and basically need max strength at all load-bearing parts of the bike.

i like this. i'm not sure if my more recent posts here have been good examples of who i am, and what my philosophies about bicycling are, but here's the deal. i'm a retro grouch, with a serious gadget fetish. all hail the friction shifter, the square taper, the quill stem, 42/52 chainrings and 5 speed corn cob clusters, but not cotton tape --it bothers me. all of my frames are steel. my classy roadie is an old lugged italian steel with a moniker that starts with a "P." it has a 1" welded steel quill stem, but also STIs and an octalink BB. my "daily commuter" is an old trek with mile-long chainstays, moustache bars, and a 1" threadless fork/stem/headset, which up until recently had bar end shifters (i scored some ultegra STIs for nothing, so i'm usin' 'em) i was bummed when i found out the original threaded steerer tube had been replaced with a threadless one; i had a technomic all ready to go. i will probably never own a road bike other than this that has a threadless setup. i don't need it. MTB is a different story. despite seeing plenty of folks out there with 1" threaded headsets and quill stems, i have no confidence in that system for my style of riding...even XC.

carbon looks cool. it also absorbs shock, but in a different way than steel or Ti does. carbon tends to absorb the more high frequency road "buzz." steel and Ti smooth out the bigger jolts, while leaving the buzz. carbon will make you feel the larger jolts, but deaden the aftershocks. people seem to think it gives you a "better" connection to the road, i think it feels dead. if i was some whippet racerboy, hell yes i'd be on blingy carbon fiber with all the latest doodads and widgets...but i'm not, and still, i make it through the hilliest of rides on my 22lb steel bike. i still keep pace with the wannabes on their 18lb wonderbikes. it makes me wonder what i would be capable of on lighter bike, and i get the bike lust and dream and scheme of ways to afford that six13. then i come to my senses and realise: "i don't NEED that." very few people "need" that. too many people buy that. i think i would say something along the lines of, "carbon is stupid, don't ever use it." i own one carbon component, the handlebar for my XC bike. it's a $120 bar that i got for $20 off a customer who wanted something he could put bar-ends on. had i not gotten an amazing deal on it, i'd be riding the $20 EA-30 bar, and would never have even thought about a carbon handlebar. i'll never buy a brand new one. i don't see the point, i don't see the advantage of carbon anything for bicycling.

the rivendell thing bugs me. i think it's been mentioned before on this forum about how grant peterson had the oportunity to change the course of modern bicycling when he was running the show for bridgestone USA. i'm not sure why he gave that up to start a company that produces the bikes that most people SHOULD be on, but because they are so low-volume, are out of reach for the very people who they claim to be making these bikes for...the everyman. the person who needs a bike to get around town, to do everything on. it really irks me to listen to him complain about the trends in modern cycling when he could've made it more mainstream and practical.

i like to defend the new stuff, because it has it's place. being a mechanic, i appreciate how much goes into the design and enojy how it makes cycling more efficient for the talented few who can actually make use of the technology.

Oh, ok, I didn't realise it was that simple. There was me thinking that jump and bmx stems didn't have a problem with not being strong enough.

OneTinSloth: you're an interesting sort of retro grouch. How well does STI work on Moustache bars? I'd think that bar-end shifters would actually be easier to use than STI on moustache bars. But I've not tried it both ways (heck, I've never used brifters, and not because I'm against them, but rather because I've not seen the need to update).
-
And, in addition to realizing that you don't need that, you also realize that your body weight fluctuates by probably more than 4 pounds through weekly or monthly life, and that amount of weight makes little difference to your cycling.

On Rivendell, I have some thought that Grant Peterson did change some things about the course of modern cycling, by starting Rivendell. First, I understand that he always had a somewhat tenuous relationship with Bridgestone - he had a vision, and it could partially line up with Bridgestone's, but not fully, and eventually Bridgestone pulled out of the U.S. market. Then he formed Rivendell.
Second, although you're right that Riv doesn't serve the typical market - their stuff is far too expensive for that - they have done a good job at getting their cycling ideology out there. And interestingly, you've seen companies start producing for the more affordable markets, in line with that vision. Small budget-welded-steel makers like Surly and Soma. But you also have large companies, with Trek's Pilot line and Specialized's Roubaix line, making road bikes that are light and fast, but without aggressive racing geometry, and with clearance for larger tires and/or fenders. I have some thought that this all happened, in part, because Riv did a good job pitching their philosophy (which makes very good sense on many counts, and comes off as reactionary on others). Some of the good-sense counts have been adopted by larger manufacturers.

i'm not a retro grouch in the sense that i shun all the new stuff, i just have a really deep appreciation for everything that simply, reliably, and effectively does it's job.

hehe...umm, well, the STIs still do their job. it's an interesting feel though. i would actually prefer the barcons for looks and function. eventually, i'll get around to putting them back on. the biggest reason i put the STIs on was that i didn't have decent brake levers for the longest time. i had some old dia comps that were falling apart and needed/wanted something i could rely on. the other reason was that my cassette is a 9-speed mountain and the bar ends were indexed for 8 and i wanted to be able to go off road without having to fiddle too much to find the sweet spot in the rear. i have done it, and had minimal trouble with it, so that was workable, however the brake levers for long descents just weren't going to cut it. i had these 9-speed STIs that i wasn't using, that i didn't pay for (a customer didn't want them because the nameplates broke off in such a way that they couldn't be replaced). the bike also has a first generation XTR rapid rise RD with a roll-a-ma-jig. the bike is a total hodge-podge and i like it that way. my motivation behind this bike is "because i can and it works."

if i could find another trek 600 frame that had it's original fork intact, i'd try to restore it to as close as possible to original, but since this one had been mucked with so much already, i figured, what the hell?

Actually they work quite well. I had the Ergo setup on m-bars, but I believe STI's are a bit more ergo friendly...

This thread has generated much discussion with many opinions stated as fact. Its likely that many people will read it in the future, and they deserve to see the best possible information. So, not to be argumentive, but to be educational, I submit the following points with more to come later.

1) The very low end of the bicycle scale (for example Target) often have quill stems. To some this indicates that the conversion to threadless stems is not about manufacturing efficiencies. However, its important to understand the global bike economy before esposing such an opinion.
Taiwan is the global center of high-quality bicycle production. This is true because they put a never-ending emphasis on quality, enhanced productivity, and building/supporting this industry. They are not a low labor cost market. As a result, they don't sell much into the Targets of the world. They are a step above. Efficiency for them is about lowering labor costs. The investment in new products and technologies to reduce labor is a sensible step.
China and India follow a different model. They have low labor costs, to manage their overall production costs, they have to curtail capital investment. Hence, keep making what you've been making, and make only the most necessary repairs to existing machinery and processes. These countries specialize in shipping to the Targets of the world.
So, at the bottom of the scale, it is more cost effective to contiue to produce quill stems, even though they entail a higer labor component in the manufacturing process. Once we get beyond the bottom of the scale, it makes sense to curtail the labor component of mfg. and hence we see the adoption of the threadless stem.
NB The comparisions of Taiwan, China, and India are valid, but not quite so Black and White as portrayed here.

The adoption of the threadless stem was driven by manufactuers to rationalize their processes. There are lots of great ideas that haven't been adopted for bikes, and some bad ones that have. The mfgs are in this to make money, not to be your bicycling angels. None of this suggests that one stem type of another is better, or that you the consumer are generally getting shoddy goods. But, only the niave would argue that this or that feature of this or that product must be good, else the mfg wouldn't have done things that way.

Moreover, the threadless stem as it exists today is quite different from the threadless stem as it was first made. weight, extension diameter, bar clamping methods etc. Moreover, when speaking of either a quill stem or a threadless stem, there is significant variation in either category and significant overlap in characteristics between the products in each category. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to provide hard factual evidence to the contrary, but without that, the arguments ring hollow.

We have threadless stems because they rationalize the manufacturing process. This is very similar to the reason for having straight-legged forks. Neither product is bad. Neither product is inhernetly better or worse than its predecessor. Different people like each. But the reason that we have these products is that they have reduced the cost of producing your bicycle.

2) Carbon absorbs shock! Phullease help me. So does steel, titanium, and aluminum. Actually, its the epoxy more than the carbon that absorbs shock. But what difference does that make.

At what frequency does carbon significantly dampen vibration? How much of that frequency do you encounter during your rides? How much does carbon dampen that frequency? I've yet to see a discussion of these factors in any of the popular press or websites. One has to dig into engineering mater to find any answers. So, the "shock absoprtion" advocates are generally working from oft repeated common wisdom and subjective evaluation. Unfortunately those two factors can't be separated in real life as too many experiments to count have proven.

It doesn't matter if Fermilab or NASA can instument a bike a measure differences in dampening. What matters is if these differences are noticable in real world cycling. My experience is that they are not. Moreover, road buzz isn't what gets to me anyway. What I hate are going over frost heaves. 50 or 100 miles of frost heaves are hard on me and hard on the bike. This may not be as bad as cobbles, but if I want something absorbed, this is it.

If you believe that carbon or titanium is more comfortable, great. But without a double blind test, you're not likely to know know the truth value of that claim.

On the other hand, tires do a great job of absorbing shock and buzz. The wider the tire and the lower the pressure, the better job that is done. Naturally, this is counter to many folks thinking: which goes along the lines of the hardest possible tires are necessary for efficiency, and that a shock absorbing frame is therefore required to protect oneself from becomign road-pummled.

Its funny, I can pull up next to another rider on any kind of bike, with any brand of clinchers and wheel combo, and if we assume the same relative position on our bikes and coast, I tie or beat them every time. Why's this funny? Because I'm usually on 700cx28 tires inflated to 90lbs in front and 95lbs in back.

On a smooth surface, high pressures lead to slight improvements in efficiency. But, roads aren't smooth. And too much pressure going over bumps reduces your mechanical efficiency. It also tends to wear out the rider. And if either the rider or the bike can't finish the race, then their speed doesn't matter.

So stiffer is stiffer, but not generally better. Threadless stems have many useful qualities, as do quill stems. Shock absorption comes from tires, not the frame. We have threadless stems because they rationalized the manufacturing process. Threadless stems have gone through much evolution since they were first developed. There are a wide variety of characteristcs among the many brands and models of threadless stems. Its in the individual riders best interest not to get trapped in marketing think, but rather to figure out his/her real cycling needs and then get out for a ride.

Threadless is superior for disassembly, for instance, with case-packable S&S coupler-fitted bikes.
And it makes changing bars easier than with a threaded quill stem (although I can't see why a quill stem couldn't also be made with a detachable bar clamp as threadless stems have).

Threaded quill stems seem to make adjustment of the bar height more flexible, although adjustability can be planned into a threadless stem with excess steerer above the stem covered by spacer stock.

damn I picked a good thread to start :)

thanks for all the input everybody, I've learned way way more than I ever intended about this :p

You're the one asking for data, where are you pulling out this little tidbit?

I think the tires have more flex than any other part on a bike...

Cyclists exaggerate the effects of equipment design all the time. It is part of the hobby.

As an example, there was a recent scientific study about bicycle cranks. What the study showed is that, while there are measureable differences in stiffness between various cranks, the size of the differences was minuscule and way below the threshold of human sensation. Basically, if you feel a lack of stiffness in the cranks, it is not the cranks you feel. It is the frame. Nevertheless, I see people trumpeting that the study showed the Ultegra crank to be the stiffest. That's a particle of truth sitting inside a universe of nonsense.

Another favorite for me is tire rolling resistance. This is another thing that is used all the time to market tires. Cyclists worry about it incessantly. Way, way, way below the threshold of human sensation and performance, assuming tires of the same size pumped to the same pressure. One 700X23 at 110 psi is as good as another in terms of rolling resistance. Buy your tires because of some other performance factor. Rolling resistance doesn't matter.

Or the triple vs. double crankset war. Every road cyclist except for strong, pro racers would be better served with triples. It's a fact, not an opinion. Even some of the strong pro racers use them on some of the more extreme climbs in stage races. You all know it is true. But everyone wants to emulate the strong pro racers and look down on those that use triples. I don't know why, but they do. Beginners with triple cranksets can't wait to convert them to compact doubles so they can still climb a hill but not fear others looking down on them. They end up with a lighter wallet and fewer gearing options. I don't know why they do it but they do.

Personally, threaded vs. threadless headsets and stems don't affect my riding one bit one way or the other. The same is most likely true for you. It wouldn't occur to me to "upgrade" from one to the other. I understand the advanages of the threadless technology. But they are subtle advantages not major ones.

I won't even start with weight weenieism.

It's just human nature. No need to let it get to you.

Mothra,

I should be out polishing a head-tube, but fair's fair, eh? No I'm not going to dig up minutes of design and engineering meetings at Giant. Nor am I going to research quotes on the subject from BRAIN. Call me lazy if you like.

Instead, let me illustrate the cost savings thusly:
. Henry James stocks 4 lengths of threaded steerers. One can presume that this is a sufficent number of lengths to cover the range of sizes built by a large bicycle mfg. This is four times as many parts to maintain in stock as a single length (long) of threadless steerer. And, to ensure against stock outs, someone (even with a JIT system) needs to maintain buffer stocks which ultimately add to the cost of the finished product.
. The fork mfg, now has to make at least 4 sizes of fork (assuming that only steerer length, not offset) varies among the forks. Once again, there is a need to manage 4 inventories rather than one, and there is a need for 4X the safety stock.
. Threaded steerers need to have the threads applied. Even when this is automated, it is an additional expense which doesn't exist for threadless steerers. And, and automated threading machines aren't exactly free.
. During assembly, the mfg process needs to keep track of which size frame is being built up, and make sure that the correct size of threaded steerer is being assigned to it. This is an additional process and cost, whether its managed proactively, or whether someone grabs a frame, eyeballs it, grabs a fork and holds it up to the frame to confirm that he/she grabbed the right fork.

The cost savings should be obvious, especially related to a large scale MFG.

Some people find their threadless headsets to be more immune from coming out of adjustment, especially off road. I don't doubt this is true, and would represent an advantage for a subset of the larger riding population. I'm not sure that this is the only solution, (heck, I'm not even sure what the real problem cause is). About 2 years ago, I stopped offroad riding. Mostly a time issue, but I also didn't want to ruin my fork.

The last rebuild, I was told that replacement parts probably wouldn't be available to rebuild it again in the future. My bike is an old Stumpjumper, made of Tange Prestige Tig welded in Japan (back when that was still an affordable source of higher-end frames). It has a Future Shock which is essentially a Specialized branded version of the original Rock Shox. It's rather irreplacible, or I would have so done. You see, it's a 1" threaded steerer fork. The threaded headset on this bike (probably a Tange) hasn't had problems of any kind, including no problems maintaining adjustment.

There have been a number of methods for fixing threaded headsets to prevent them from loosing up, but I haven't had a problem in this area, so haven't looked at them too closely. However, of all the reasons that explain why threadless headsets gain a foothold in the market (apart from mfg rationality), preventing headsets from loosening is the most compelling argument. However, the change to threadless headsets is a fairly radical way to resolve the problem of headsets becoming loose. As a consequence, it doesn't explain the rapid and nearly total conversion of the industry to the new "standard".

Remember, threadless stems did not start out as they are today. In fact, they often had extensions that were very similar to those of quill stems - hence they had riding attributes much like quill stems.

For those who remember some of the early Mt Bike equipment, especially at the lower middle price range, there were some odd looking stems and bars produced. Some worked with threaded steerers but had 4 bolt heads. Sometimes bolting from above instead of from in front. There seemed to be a real attempt to affect a pseudo motorcycle look. Bits and pieces of all the various ideas stuck as the threadless stem evolved, and today its quite a competent piece of equipment - provided the headtube on your bike is long enough.

If my arguments aren't compelling to you, well I tried. Just remember, threadless headsets and stems clamped directly to the outside of steerers date back to before WWII. Who knows, maybe the wind will blow in another direction some day and we'll all go gaga, once again, for quill style headsets. In the mean time, enjoy what you have and make sure you put some miles on this and every week. Cuz, not matter what you're riding, the other guy is training hard.

Time has passed, and hopefully some passions have eased. So perhaps we can re-analyze the question of bending the bars 2"?

Let me confirm that I haven't bent a set of bars, or a stem, in such a fashion. I have no intention of starting now - aluminum isn't good at fatigue resistance, and I don't provoke it just for grins. My original post should have said that one can't bend the bars 2" without causing permanent harm. It's pretty tough to prove a negative condition - for example that one can't bend the bars 2". But that really doesn't matter.

What matters is that it’s destructive to bend the bars 2". And, that there is no need to do so while riding. If someone is experiencing breaking stems or bars, that someone is doing something wrong.

Looking at Danno's pictures, it ought to be clear how hard it is for him to stabilize the front wheel enough to try and bend the bars. If one is trying to use upper body strength to help provide a base against which to pedal, then the correct form is to push the bars from side to side, not to rotate them around the axis of the stem's extension. Having said that, people will often ride as they do and blame their equipment for failures.

Having said this, a larger diameter extension will better resist motion, hence fatigue, better than an otherwise equal skinny one. Therefore it will better resist fatigue failure, up to its structural limits. But, this is only important if during proper use, the narrower stem can't adequately resist motion and fatigue.

Now, reviewing the pictures provided, I continue to challenge the assertion that they demonstrate 2" of motion by the handlebars. Before going off, consider the following:
1) The location of the camera has moved (look at the box or crate on the floor behind Danno on the left (his right).
2) The direction the bike is pointing is relative to the camera has changed between the pictures.
3) The frame is leaning to the left in one picture, and to the right in another picture.
4) The fork is turned relative to the frame; in one picture to the left, in the other to the right.
5) Mysteriously, where the top-tube exits the bottom of the picture, it is neatly centered in both pictures. Given all the other motion, this looks to be the result of cropping - to be polite.

No these pictures prove nothing because we can't see the effects of foreshortening. That the visual distance is different from the two ends of the handlebars to the fork crown is beyond question. Does this translate into actual distance? It’s not clear; we don't understand the relationship of the camera angle to each of the pictures. It seems likely that the pictures, as presented exaggerate the differences in real distance. How much does this exaggerate? We don't know, but likely a good bit.

Consider a couple of further points:
1) The computer, mounted on the stem, seems to move relative to the bars in the two pictures. Surely the bars aren't moving in the clamp? Is it fully tightened?
2) The torsional resistance of the stem's extension should be twice its bending resistance. There is no sign of bending. Similarly, the handlebars show no sign of bending. Is it possible to get all of this perceived motion simply from twisting the extension, without part visibly bending? I don't think so.

So, to summarize:
1) Don't bend the ends of your bar's 2" - you're liable to become a statistic.
2) Don't assume that a picture, just because it’s worth a thousand words, proves anything geometric until you've made sure of what you're seeing.
3) Doubt that stems have the twisting flexibility to allow the ends of the handlebars to be moved 2" up or down.

What's the real point of all this? There has been a good deal of poor logic wrapped around emotion in many of the point raised in this thread. The marketers have most of us in their grips, more than we like to acknowledge. One's objective statements have to be taken in context to determine their truth value. That the typical threadless stem is stiffer than typical quill statement is true. But, if we instead said: "The typical quill stem better absorbs shock than the typical threadless stem" we would also be telling the truth. Both statements convey non-objective opinion. The first suggests that greater stiffness is desirable. The second suggests that more shock absorption is desirable. And, there are no published data regarding the stiffness or shock absorption of stems, much less a clear body of information of how much of which benefits riders most. So adding the subjective content to a true statement diminishes the truth-value of that statement.

Enjoy what you have. Be cautious of experts (including myself). Ignore the marketeers.

Okay, so if you have a threaded stem and you want to change to threadless, what do you need?

I consider myself a run of the mill rec rider, and here are my truthful experiences with a threaded headset, featured on my '05 Bianchi Brava, the last of the truly 'classic' Bravas, if that word can be applied to a Taiwan-manufactured bike (the '06 switched to threadless for good).

The threaded headset required constant adjustment. After a crash in the middle of a ride it was knocked loose, and not knowing enough or having the proper tools to tighten it correctly I was forced to ride it loose to get back home. The threading got damaged, and pretty soon the headset was coming loose pretty much on a weekly basis, even after taking it down to the shop to get it tightened multiple times. My headset and quill stem also creaked - a lot. Every hard stroke up a hill would give me a very confidence-inspiring squeak or groan from the whole setup, even with all the bolts tightened down.

I finally received a shiny new silver headset from Bianchi under warranty, and boy did it look nice. The problems went away, but even so I was turned off of threaded headsets for good. During the three months in which I owned the Brava, there was not a one to two week period when a new headset problem arose. I gotta honestly say that I'm a lot happier with my new Veloce with threadless.

Here is the small list of advantages and disadvantages that I compiled through my experience only. Please note that most people with threaded headsets haven't experienced the problems I have and like them very much, but I'm just recounting based on my story.

Threaded
-Comes loose, requires constant adjustment
-Requires a flat 32 mm wrench to properly maintain/tighten
-Creaky (for me at least)
-Lack of stiffness
-Always a little bit of play between fork and steerer, even when tightened down

-Admittedly, looks very beautiful when done right
-Adjustable

Threadless
-Non-adjustable
-Lack of 'classic look'

-Much stiffer, tighter
-Adjustment requires minimal tools

Need to add that the stems become cheaper to manufacture as well. I actually stopped at Far Horizon's answer (first responder) because it was the all that needed to be said.

Been riding for 50 (oops 51) years and have yet to have the "...comes loose..." problem on a good quality Threaded headset. Using Campy, Stronglight, or Tange (campy copy) only. Creaking stem is easily fixed with the application of a small strip of aluminum shim made from a RED BULL can. Won't even see it...Sorry old school thinking.
I have a number of bikes threadless as well as my older steel threaded ones. Still ride about 5K miles per year distributed between all my bikes, so none of my bikes are what one would deem as "wall art."
Good luck

You will need a new fork, a threadless headset and a stem. Performance sells a bundled upgrade kit with all three that seems like an ok deal to me. If you are doing the labor yourself, there is a lot more you need (you can improvise some of it).

You need to get the old headset cups out of the frame (be careful, but a flat head screw driver, a mallet and patience will do it. Then you press the new cups into the frame (you can make a home made press with a threaded rod, some washers or bushings and a few bolts). The last tricky bit is pressing the new race onto the fork. All of this isn't all that hard, but if you don't feel comforatble with all of that, have a shop do it.