TallRider

I should note that while I agree with all of the structural advantages of the threadless system, it's not as if a threaded system is highly problematic. And the height adjustability does make the bike a whole lot more flexible than threadeless, and with threadless you need to be careful to not cut too much steerer initially in order to allow you space for future adjustments.
My good road bike is a straight-up racing frame, and I'm now using a Nitto Technomic stem to get the bars to just 4" below the saddle height. And yes, the top tube is long enough.


The 130mm-extension stem (with 46cm-wide bars) is noticably flexy when I stand up and sprint. But if I apply force to the bars perpendicular to the frame and rock the bike side-to-side instead of torquing on the bars relative to the frame (there's different ways that you can apply force to the bars) I can hammer pretty well without flexing the bars much. And I'm comfortable trusting a forged Nitto stem.

FarHorizon

Hi Wayne J.!

You're exactly correct. Any ideas on how to get the manufacturers to LEAVE more of that steer tube?

nemonis

I think that may be the million dollar question. I don't know. The bike I have, the Bianchi Volpe has a decent stack of spacers under the stem, so I don't have a problem. I would say if a bunch of folks start complaining about the lack of adjustability, they might do something. I would rather have a stack of spacers and a -17 stem than no spacers and a + 5 stem. The one problem is the number of people who think it looks 'uncool' to have spacers under your stem. Oh, well.

God bless!
Wayne J.

OneTinSloth

i'm so sick of hearing people talk about how the only reason such-and-such part catches on is because the manufacturers shoved it down our throats. has anyone ever considered that maybe they have our best interests in mind, and that maybe the reason why something becomes so widespread to become the new standard is because people actually like it? years ago, shimano came up with the brilliant idea of making a sort of squar-ish chainring, they called it bio-pace. bike manufacturers spec'd it for a couple years, and then the consumers decided they didn't like it and stopped buying it. and thus, it faded into the obsolecance.

the threadless system is, for the most part, better and people like it, and therefore, it's not going anywhere until someone comes up with something else. it's stronger, it's stiffer, it's lighter, and most importantly, it's safer than threaded systems, especially on mountain and BMX bikes. on a road bike, you still see those same benefits in stiffness, but i'm not entirely convinced that it's necessary. i do just fine with my quill stem and threaded headset. i definitely notice some flex when sprinting but i think it's mostly in my handlebars (salsa pro-road, 40cm). but i digress...

to offer some thoughts on other topics brought up in this thread...

for the height adjustment issue, i can assure you all that someone, somewhere is working on that. since threadless systems debuted, that has always been a sticking point for a lot of people (myself included). however, there isn't a good way to do it now without negating many of the benefits of the system.

one of the main reasons why steerer tubes are cut short on a lot of production bikes is the material of the steerer tube itself. on a CF steerer tube, you can safely only have about 1" of spacers between the top ofthe headset and the bottom of the stem (for insurance reasons). on an aluminum steerer, you can have about 2", which should be enough for most people. you can go higher on a steel steerer tube, but most manufacturers have moved away from that to save weight.

i work in a shop that sells more bikes than i have ever seen a shop sell, to so many different customers with different riding styles and goals, and i can say that the typical threadless setup works for most people. there are always going to be exceptions.

i think an advantage of the compact frame phenomenon is that while it narrows the spectrum of available sizes per model. it streamlines the manufacturing process, which costs the companies less $$$ per bike model, but also allows them to make MORE models with varying geometries for varying purposes. so instead of an industry where there is one type of road bike with one geometry set per company, we have multiple road bike models for multiple purposes. this gets more people out there on bikes and isn't that the whole point?

a lot of companies that make more "comfort" oriented road bikes, (specialized roubaix, cannondale synapse, the litespeed sienna, the raleigh cadents, the trek pilot) the head tubes are taller above the top tube. this puts the stem effectively higher than it would be on a more racerboy bike. the more "comfort" oriented bikes are still very high zoot performance machines, but designed with the idea that not everyone needs or wants to be in a super aero tuck all the time.

operator

Oh PLEASE. Not everyone is a racer. The run of the mill rec rider could hardly give a bigger **** about miniscule "stiffness" benefit. Just because racers use it and abuse stuff doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to run the same gear they do.

TallRider

Manufactuers do have an interests to have the best interests of the consumer in mind, where safety is concerned, but not necessarily where cost, sizing flexibility, etc., are concerned.
OneTinSloth is correct that some innovations will fade because consumers don't like them, but why and why not consumers like them depends a lot on the marketing. In the case of Biopace, Shimano is commonly understood to have made a major marketing error in how they pitched Biopace, accidentally/implicitly suggesting that it wasn't a good design for "serious" riders, and after that became "common knowledge" no one wanted them. I run them on my fixed and on the road bike that I keep in Michigan at my parents' place, where the terrain is relatively flat.

I agree that threadless is better all-around, with the possible exception of road bikes that won't see crazy torquing in a sprint.
I don't think that threadless is a bad idea that manufacturers are trying to cram down people's throats. It is, however, spec'd in places where it doesn't make the most sense, or spec'd in a way that doesn't make sense (without long steerer tubes that allow for adjustability). Which isn't a critique of the threadless system, though.

I do think that we'll continue to see quill stems

Also, a very good analysis of the pros and cons of fewer sizes but greater number of models. Thanks!

One very interesting thing is that the "sport road" or "comfort road" market is something that major manufactuers didn't really get into with much heart until Rivendell had really pushed the category. Rivendell makes expensive bikes, but their strong critique that the average road bike - which will never be raced - should be able to take wider tires, fenders, a rack, etc... that philosophy got picked up by enough people to make the manufacturers realize that it was a viable marketing strategy for lots of cyclists. Surly and Soma have piggybacked in here, too.

Cactus

I'm going to try one more post here, but that's it - so be patient.

I'm sorry if anyone thought I was getting too personal. I don't attack people, but I do attack ideas.

Someone mentioned being tired that people blame the popularity of a system or component on the manufacturers when the component is clearly better.

I'm not going to be drawn into is one stem or headset better or worse. I use them all. For the record, I don't think any of them has a compelling benefit except in very narrowly defined circumstances.

Stiffness.... What's it all about. Several posts have tried to demonstate that its important. Well, yes, a plastic stem (form, not material) wouldn't work. But, all stems are stiff.

So, how much stiffness do you need? Or, do I need? Or, the guy down the street? We don't quantify this, and don't really know how to measure it (yes an engineer could figure it out how to measure it in a heartbeat, but I'm talking about cyclists).

No, before anyone starts slavering at their keyboard to straighten me out - consider handlebar wrap.

Most of you probably didn't ride back in the days of cotten tape. It was pretty good stuff. It was cheap, durable, came in pretty colors, gave a good grip in gloves or bare-handed, and was easy to work. The later was especially interesting. If you had a long enough roll, you could use a single piece with a figure eight around the brake hood - you didn't need a second piece to had the band clamp. Not important, but kinda cool.

"So what?" you ask. Well, today, who do you know who would consider using cotton tape. Its not cool, but there's more to it than that. People will tell you that its not comfortable on a long ride. It doesn't absorb road buzz. Using it, your hands start to tingle. So, we moved our way along to cork tapes and the other padded varieties (I like Deda). Now we're moving to putting pudding in a bag (gel) pads under our tapes. And, people are getting carbon bars to dampen shock (just as their carbon forks do).

Again, you ask "So what?" Well.... It so happens that roads were worse than today through most of the cotton tape era. But people weren't looking very hard for alternatives to cotton tape to protect their wrists. So, roads have gotten better, we've built shock-absorbing frames & forks, and now handlebars, yet we now need better padding on the handlebar.

What else has changed? An obsession with stiffness that borders on paranoia. Yeah, give me a super stiff stem and handlebar and I'm going to feel the road in my hands. We over stiff, then we have to over compensate with padding. Why? Because the marketers and magazines have told us to.

Show me the indepedent study that proves that, in real world use, its important to stiffen the frame beyond a typical 531 racing frame of the early 70's. You can't, it hasn't been done. Hell, Roche outclimbed and outsprinted the other greats on an aluminum Alan - the definition of a wet noodle.

Show me a study the proves the need for the stiffness of a oversized stem (which is stiff because of its sizing, not because it clamps to the steerer). You can't, it hasn't been done.

Can you show me annecodotal evidence of cases where there was insufficient stiffness in all or some parts of a bike. Sure, I can provide that too. But I just provided you with annecdotal evidence that most people are riding on bars and stiff that are too stiff.

You into jump bikes? A small segment, but one the MFGs need to watch 'cuz its exploding. Yeah, you need a strong stem. Better it be steel than aluminum - regardless of style. Stiffness isn't really the issue here, though, its strength.

Are you a beefy track sprinter? You do want stiffness, but a lot of them still use the quill stem, just one designed for stiffness and strength. As previously noted, these are generally steel.

But for just about everyone else, its just not an issue execpt as it relates to not being upstaged by our buddies and thus having our egos hurt. Not everyone can win at the finishline, but anyone can buy a winner of a bike.

Is it an objective statement that an Aheadstem is superior to a quill because its stiffer? No, of course not - that's a highly subjective value statement.

It's an objective statement that most Aheadstems are stiffer than most quill stems because they are of larger diameter. Whether you really need, or should want, stiffer is a different question.

Over the winter I built a carbon frame. From a bling standpoint, its pretty cool. Sloping top-tube geometry with a 56cm actual seat tube. 16.44 lbs with clincher Ksyrium SLs. Of course, I don't ride those suckers - they're too expensive - they're just to prove the point. I got it painted and built up recently, and took it out on a ride with my buds who did a double take 'cuz I'm usually on a steel frame with fenders (OhMyGod). Anyhow, as they were looking it over and talking after the ride (and asking if I could make them one), someone asked: "Now what's the advantage of carbon?" Before I could say: "It looks cool", someone interrupted and said: "It absorbs shock really well, titanium does too." Should I tell them I that tires abosorb shock, frames hold things together? What would you do?

As I said, I'm sorry if people take my remarks as personal attacks. While I stand by my words, I mean no one offense. However, the common wisdom proves itself to be wrong over and over again. And, as Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute." So, when I may have something to offer, I'm glad to do so.

It will be of interest to see peoples' responses. From them, it will be clear if I should continue in this manner, or spend my time in other ways. Either way, I'm not going to take it personally and I hope you don't either.

Cactus

Well, no negative responses - so I take that as an opportunity to add a couple of facts to ponder. They don't prove anything, but could stimulate thinking.

I went to the season opening at our velodrome last night. My buddy took 3rd in the Pro/1/2. There were close to 30 riders at the start. My non-scientific method couldn't find 3 threadless headsets, or aheadset stems.

Integrated headsets aren't new and date back to the early part of the 1900's.
Aheadset style stems are new and date back at least the 1930's. Threadless headsets too.
V-brakes aren't new and date back to at least the mid-1930's.

In fact, there's not much new apart from tig welding and carbon fiber material since before the second world war.

roccobike

I've read most of the posts, except the really long argumentative ones, and I have not seen a couple of points. First, I have both quill and threadlesss heads.
I see plenty of quill stems, whenever I go to Target or Walmart, and those bikes are built by bean counters. So if threadless is cheaper, why do cheaper bikes have quills, hmmm? Ok, what about the other end, if quills are really superior, why have I not seen quills on REALLY high end bikes? It seems to me there are too many quality advantages to threadless and the bike companies know this and won't return to quills.
By the way, as someone who purchases some older bikes with quills, I dread every time I buy a used bike that's only in fair condition and I try to loosen the quill. I hope the grease has done its job and kept the fork and stem from binding together.

TallRider

Some good points from Cactus this time. Stuff that hasn’t been directly said here. Along the lines of Rivendell’s philosophy, that I often agree with as well. It’s worth reiterating the whole stiffness-fetish argument:
Stiffness isn’t the only thing out there. People haven’t necessarily claimed that in this thread, but it’s implied a lot, especially in advertising. But often more stiffness ain’t necessary and doesn’t give any measurable actual performance gain (which may be the case with newer bottom bracket designs; I’d love to see double-blind tests trying to measure whether these actually do increase performance). Stiffness may be counterproductive in some cases; less stiff bars do soak up road buzz better. (Ideally, things would be engineered to flex a bit in the vertical plane, but not side-to-side or torsionally. But that’s another issue.)

I, too, hope that quill stems don’t become relics, although that does seem to be the trend.

Also, there’s no reason that a quill stem can’t have a separate faceplate clamp design, that doesn’t require unwrapping the bars to remove them and change stems.


On roccobike's post:
* we see a lot more cheap quill stems than cheap threadless stems, which is partially due to the newness off the technology, but does sort of deflate the point about threadless designs being cheaper.
* some good modern bikes are designed for/with quill stems. They just aren't any of the racing bikes. Which don't make much sense for most road cyclists to be riding anyway, unless one of their main goals is to race, or to ride fast and racing-like. Which I enjoy at times, but just cruising along through the country (still relatively fast) is much fun, too.

dooley

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

TallRider

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.

OneTinSloth

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.

dooley

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.

TallRider

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.

OneTinSloth

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?

roadfix

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

Cactus

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.

CHenry

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.

Philatio

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

Mothra

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...

fmw

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.

Cactus

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.

Cactus

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.

cohophysh

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