Most threadless stems/headsets require only a 5 mm allen to change the height. Quick and easy. You can do it while on a ride.
On Dec 11, 4:39 pm, James Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > This is marginally on-topic I guess, because it's mentioned in the latest > Rivendell catalog, but I just want to briefly point out that the quill stem > has been important to me because of the ease of bar height adjustment WHILE > OUT ON A RIDE. I should have made that distinction clear. I won't go into why > I've needed to adjust during rides, because then we'd open a can of off-topic > worms. I'm not trying to win an argument here; I just wanted to point out why > a quill has been necessary...for me. > > -Jim W. > > p.s. Thanks for the information on working with the threadless system. > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <[email protected]> > >Sent: Dec 11, 2009 5:06 PM > >To: RBW Owners Bunch <[email protected]> > >Subject: [RBW] Re: Now threaded steer tube (was lug vs. tig) > > >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? > > >-- > > >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 > >athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- 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.
