> I hear this again and again, but it's just not true. Threadless allows > easy adjustment of bar height if the steerer isn't cut too short.
This is true, if, and especially with higher end bikes a real big if, the owner is happy with having a spacer atop the threadless stem. I know many people who like threadless stems who are not happy with the look. More sturdy I'll grant you with most quills. But the Nitto Dirt Drop and the afore-mentioned Gordon Chicken Neck are really high grade. There are a few quill stems - including a Nitto - made with a removeable face plate. Kind of run counters to the clean look of a quill, but it is available. On Dec 11, 4:06 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <[email protected]> wrote: > I hear this again and again, but it's just not true. Threadless allows > easy adjustment of bar height if the steerer isn't cut too short. > That's the real problem - too short steerers. If you start with a full- > length steerer, say 300 mm, and a typical 58 cm frame, you can > generally get the bars at or above saddle height without having a > severe up-angle stem, steerer extender, etc. > > If it takes 1 minute to adjust the bar height with a quill stem, then > it probably takes two minutes to do it with a threadless set-up, and > requires the same tools (allen wrench(es)). Most likely, you won't > have to do it too many times, so the extra minutes don't add up to > much. > > Benefits of threadless to the end-user are: easy handlebar/stem swaps > later (no need to peel bar tape or remove levers), added stiffness (an > issue with heavily loaded bikes and bikes that ride on rough terrain), > and I suppose it's lighter (not that I care). Also, headset bearing > adjustment is easier and requires simpler tools with threadless. > Benefit to bike shops and manufacturers: No need to manufacture/stock > 8 different forks for 8 different frame sizes. > > I own/ride a bunch of bikes, and a lot of them have quill stems, which > is fine. But I personally would not select a quill stem over > threadless if there was an option. > > On Dec 11, 3:42 pm, James Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't agree that threadless is demonstrably better. For me, the benefits > > of easy bar height adjustability outweighs all the other stuff combined. > > > A less signficant, but still real, thing that the quill offers is a good > > place to attach the type of bell I like to use. > > > -Jim W. > > > -----Original Message----- > > >From: Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <[email protected]> > > >Well, having a special run of parts made is more difficult than using > > >something that is already available with probably 100 variants from > > >which to choose. And if the modern, widely available version is > > >demonstrably an improvement over the antiquated version that requires > > >a special production run, then the question becomes: why bother?- Hide > > >quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
