Hi I saw an older post on the Innicycles threadless conversion headset. Looks like a great idea / product much better than a quill stem adapter if you need to modernise an older bikes stem and bars.

What are people experiences with them and best place to find them online to buy?

Thanks

I remember reading about this a few years ago. It seems like a decent idea but the price is just a bit off-putting. I just looked at the website. I see it's $125. If I'm reading the pictures right, it's a replacement headset where the top nut includes an extension that simulates an unthreaded steerer tube. So I wonder, is that extension attached to the original steerer tube by just the threads? That seems like a less reliable connection than a threadless stem adapter.

If you look at this installation video (~13 minutes, also posted above), you'll see that in addition to the threading at the top onto the steerer, the shaft has a split bottom with a wedge (starting a bit after 10 mins.).
My beef with the product, just looking at it, is that the shaft above the headset is shorter than I might like. Plus, when the bearings go (can't be roller bearings, it seems to me) where are the replacements? (not on the "shopping" page). The Innicycle site is remarkably thin on technical info, but they do seem to support 26.4 vs 27.0 crown races and spacers (albeit for extra $?), French threading and even Schwinn.

I looked at the installation video and it has both the threads that engage into the steerer and a wedge. So, it should be a pretty good connection. But is it worth $125? Perhaps, if you want to go with a threadless stem. For my bikes, but I'm content with my quill stems.

You know, dance with the one that you brought to the dance. I think if I really wanted a threadless steerer tube, I'd get a bike that started out with one. Or change the fork, if that is even an option.

I remain a fork-and-stem luddite. I like the look and the adjustability of a traditional quill stem and have no motivation whatsoever to convert anything I own to threadless. Am I really missing anything at all?

I have been using one for a year or so now--works great and looks great. It's lighter than all but the most exotic threaded headset and stem combinations, feels totally solid, and opens up a wide range of modern stem options. It is expensive, so I doubt I would have bought it as an upgrade, but for a totally new build it makes sense. If you're going to put it on a steel frame with traditional diameter tubes, then consider getting "thin" spacers from Velo Orange or Simworks, since these will match the diameter of the head tube and look nice.

There are plenty of cases where I would like to go the other way, 1 1/8" to 1" but no use for this IMO.

Can anyone tell me what you gain by going to a threadless stem? What benefit are you getting that I am not getting with my 26.0mm quill stem?

Lots more angles and a removable faceplate are two that I like.

It’s not hard to find a quill stem with removable faceplate.

It's a bit of a combination threadless headset and quill adapter. Here's a pic of the "quill" part that goes into the steerer:

The threaded portion of the steerer that is above the bearing slides into a cylindrical void in the piece he is holding. It's an interesting system, but I fail to see any significant advantage over using a threaded headset and a quill adapter.
Just in case someone doesn't realize this, a threaded steerer MUST be reinforced internally, and this by design is done by the stem. The expander must engage below the threads. This distributes the lateral stresses over a large area and avoids concentrating stress at the thread, which would otherwise become an effective stress riser and almost certainly would eventually crack. That's why you don't want to clamp a threadless stem onto a threaded steerer, even though it will sometimes seem like a good fit. If the steerer does crack below the stem, there will be nothing keeping the handlebars with the bike except the cables, and you can't steer with those. This is a problem that Specialized experienced some years back and the results were not pretty. Steel threadless steerers have a thicker wall and are smooth, so stress risers don't become a problem unless there is notching. The safest installation puts the star nut or expander below the stem, as the failure will always be at the bottom edge of the stem.

What’s the difference in bearing cup dimensions from the old 1” threadless and a 1” threaded setup?

Why can’t this be done… longer threaded fork steerer tube, section of 7/8” cut quill stem stuffed inside and tack weld/plug weld under the top bearing cup, grind down a star nut star or weld a nut in the 7/8 quill tube, then just use a 1” threadless headset?

Admittedly a lot of work, but would the dimensions work?

I agree that the removeable face plate is a great feature. There are a fair number of quill stems from the 90's which have either a hinged plate or removeable plate though. Nitto still makes one in fact:
https://alexscycle.com/collections/q...2-quill-stem-1

And you don't need 'angles' when you can adjust the whole quill stem up and down.

31.8mm bars come in significantly more shapes and angles than 26.0mm bars.
Threadless stems come in more angles and lengths and are more plentiful.


Maybe you don't find value in those things, and that's OK. Doesn't mean they aren't beneficial for others.

I have bought and installed one. For a project where you want to use a modern stem but also want to keep an original threaded fork it's a great solution. My only gripe/warning is that when I installed this the aluminum quill bolt/top cap proved too soft and started rounding out before the lock wedge was fully secured in the steerer, so I had to improvise with some assorted parts to get the headset snug, then reinstall the original cap as a cosmetic topper. No problems at all after figuring that out though, and it does its job as a headset perfectly.

I personally think it's a great solution to wanting threadless stems on a vintage bike with a 1" steerer to allow access to the full range of modern handlebars. There's no option that's as light or as comprehensive in design. A threadless stem adapter works alright, but unless you slam the stem it's going to look just a bit off. And, who can deny that a significant part of the allure of C&V bikes are their aesthetic.

Ability to use modern 31.8mm handlebars.

I have used mine (black color) for a number of years now. I've transferred it to half a dozen frames at least, because I'm me. The ability to put modern stem and bar combinations on a vintage bike, particularly road/race bikes, is extremely appealing, especially as being able to do so makes it match the go-fast components and wheels that accompany the rest of the build. It's significantly lighter than a headset/quill stem/aluminum handlebar setup, with the ability to run extremely lightweight carbon or aluminum bars to bring the weight down.

An innicycle headset stiffens up the upper part of the front end. So, if flex is a concern, this takes it away. The difference between it and a standard quill for stiffness is pretty apparent. That being said, the innicycle headset is a tool for a job, just like a quill stem is a tool for a job. I run the innicycle on a frame if I'm going to be running modern high-end components on a frame. I run a quill stem on a frame if I am using vintage components or mid-school modern components that are polished silver. I love the innicycle for it's control, lightness, and ability to make a cohesive aesthetic while enabling a lightweight build. Hitting just under the 20.0 lb mark with a huge steel bike with fast parts is a fun game, and the ride is equally enjoyable. And on the flip side, I love a quill stem for its beauty, the era that it represents, and the give/flex that helps absorb the road.

Spot the differences?



To my eye, the only visible difference is that the ST has a top nut and the Sachs has a comparable sized spacer.
The weight difference is minimal- surely no more than a couple of ounces, half a pound at worst.
On a ride, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in ride/steering quality.
More a fan of the quill stem than the threadless setup from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, but The Industry does direct a certain amount of style/component selection on modern frames.

I have had an innicycle headset for I think 5 years now and its been on a couple different bikes.
The other reason I like it, besides what I mentioned earlier in this thread, is it looks less goofy than a long quill stem when I have it on frames that are a little too small. At least it looks less goofy to me. The two bikes I have used it on are 80s road bikes that are 2cm or so too short, so extra spacers get used. I think it looks less goofy compared to a Technomic stem because the spacers are basically the same size as the head tube and so it flows a bit better.
...or maybe I am just lying to myself.

Sadly, the bike that has the innicycle headset is on my trainer right now! Not much reason to have an expensive headset on a trainer bike, but whatever.

There are a few quill stems with 31.8 clamp size. Like the Nitto UI.

The headset and quill stems are elegant looking components on any classic bikes. Whereas a 1 1/8" stem is just huge and clumsy looking. Also- why do bikes even need 1 1/8" steerer tubes? There are a fair number of motorcycles that don't even have steering stems that big.

Or tapered stems?

I get it that it’s probably stiffer and lighter, but it gets to a “splitting hairs” point that my out of shape self wouldn’t know the difference.

The ability to change the length of the extension relatively easily, but quill stems with a removable faceplate have similar utility.

I have the Nitto UI-12 on one bike. If you don't mind the welded-tube aesthetic, it's a great stem.