Threadless is nice but not worth the money it would cost to replace a fork that is already paid for.

maybe I'm not sensitive enough, but I do not notice...

quill stems for pres.

Threaded for life.

Mountain bikers asked the question - threaded systems just didn't hold up. Road stuff has been migrating because, well, it's just mechanically better and that's all there is to it.

Why do you prefer servicing threaded?

I was thinking the same thing myself. I've seen quills in the 60 - 80mm range all over ebay. The really short ones go for a song. IMO, threadless is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There are lots of quill stems out there with hinged or removeable faceplates. Good luck and remember ebay is your friend.

Tim

So let's switch out our frames to full suspension right? And use 26 inch tires. Or 29 inch tires ( another answer to a question nobody asked)?

well road bikes are now made threadless so whatever you're trying to argue is futile.

Threadless seems to give you more options. Honestly I feel like when people say "blah blah threaded.. blah blah walk up hill both ways" it is kind of an elitist thing. It reminds me of dudes who claim any sort of suspension on a mountain bike is for whimps because "your body is all the suspension you will ever need". Ya okay... thats great and all for repack hill in the 70s...

I feel like threadless is a good technology, and improvement, yes it _is_ an answer to a question someone asked, more versatile, to some it is an eye soar (I personally like the look) and that when people say threaded is "better" all I hear is a audiophile nerd saying to me "records sound warmer then those stupid CDs"

My new signature.

I would say go threadless if you are replacing the fork anyways, Infact if your nashbaring your fork the threaded one As threaded forks often are more expensive, This helps offsets the cost of going threaless.
Do not go crazy with the headset, Stick to Loose ball bearing I love the cheap cane creek that came of my khs, just clean and grease it every so often.

\

bad analogy dude, there are actually scientific reasons why analog records do sound better than digital music

Yep you are right. Audio recording is so complex and in some circumstances different digital recording methods sound better then analog (higher range.. etc) but to most everyone they are the same. Offtopic.

There really is no perfect analogy for any comparison but you get the point...

I'm sure we can all agree this is a bit impractical:

http://www.fredflare.com/images/prod.../1744_2926.jpg

Don't be difficult. Threadless came along because threaded systems were a nightmare when subjected to offroad abuse. But then when the two were available side by side, road bike manufacturers went along with a system that's lighter, stiffer, and more reliable. Such is the way of progress, sometimes aesthetics takes a back seat and that's fine by me. Even on road bikes those qualities give a performance benefit, unlike full suspension or smaller wheels.

A lot of people seem to like the way 29" bikes roll, I want to give them a try myself.

Personally I'm glad there are people out there trying new things and developing new products.

word. although that is one pretty girl holding the "LPod"

im not gonna argue this point any further than this, but higher range is not one of those qualities. there is no threshold in analog music and no way of not having one in digital, although yes, digital music has come so far in the past 30 years as to not have any discernible differences to many human ears. But yikes, those original 1987-2000ish cds sound like absolute trash.

Agreed.

There was a cool article (I can't seem to find it) about early CDs vs. CDs today and how they essentially boosted some levels on the first releases to make them sound better for selling purposes.

indeed. when they mastered the earliest cds from analog sources they found the best way to make the sound full and more lifelike was to pump up the reverb on the drums/low end and cut the piercing highs for a smoother sound, not to mention the sampling rate then was like what? every 1/100th of a second or so?

The chief disadvantage that threadless is going to have, for this forum anyways is that it's uglier.

Not really. Threadless allows manufacturers to make ONE for for all steerer lengths, reducing manufacturing costs (of actually threading for different steerer lengths). It is 90% marketing--- something new. I have a few bikes with either, and it some regards, threaded is better for adjusting fit.

Are you arguing that threaded is better because it's more expensive?

Whatever, i find these threaded vs threadless arguments absurd. mihlbach basically said everything that needed to be said in the first post.

I am ALL for cutting costs. I don't see the drawback there. I actually do believe that threadless stems are fixing a problem. On my mountain bike I have a nice beefy stem that can be flipped for various forms of riding, swapped out very quickly with a different stem all together with another durable and cheap stem. Easy swapping of a broken stem or to a different riding style is a problem that was fixed with threadless setups. Also.. how would a threaded setup work with a dual crown suspension fork? I don't see that working too well (correct me if I am wrong). Plain and simple they are needed in the off-road world.

I want that kind of customizability on my road bike as well. I don't understand how threaded is better to fit at all. I can't flip a threaded stem?

It's probably my different angle at biking coming from being a mountain biker first then a road biker later but I always thought threadless just made much more sense. I believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) in my mind a threadless setup is basically a fork attached at some angle to a stem and a simple headset you press in and go. Threaded has well.. threads and metal and ... more threads... basically I'm afraid of threads.. just another item to strip.

It's cutting costs for the manufacturer. Whether or not the savings is passed onto the consumer is a very good question. That being said, if threadless is needed for the type of riding you do, then by all means go threadless.

If it is not then upgrading to threadless is just a huge waste of money if you already have a threaded system. Servicing and touring wise, threadless setups are better. One allen key to adjust the entire system (most of the time).

Regardless, I still don't get why this is supposed to be a good argument for threaded.

Nobody said it was. My point is that this "pro" point for threaldess isn't really a "pro", as in it doesn't affect the consumer.

Well, you just said that "whether or not the savings is passed onto the consumer is a very good question". Is it definitely not passed on then?

Edit: I don't care and apologize for nitpicking

Well put. Thats how I feel for the most part. I think as previously said in this thread saying that threadless isn't a step forward and is something invented for no practical reason other then to pad the wallets of some bike manufacturers is ridiculous.

As for the money it most clearly does affect the consumer even if they don't directly get the savings passed onto them. More money is money for R&D, or money to sponsor riders, or just money to help some manufacturers' get by. I wouldn't call the bike industry an industry that is full of cash... it's not the auto industry (those *******s don't need anymore of our money)