I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a mountain bike last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used to own two 70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full Campy/DuraAce etc.
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember. When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like me.
Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional stems?
I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that hinted that (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more comfortable riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a traditional bar if you prefer the hunched over position).
Looking forward to being brought up to date! -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless forks, with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily adjust the stem height ... I mean seat height is still adjustable, why not stem height too? Given the wide variation in body dimensions it's hard to see why one is important and the other isn't!
I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your pointer - thanks.
BTW whatever happned to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely finished. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message newsan.2005.04.29.01.45.58.36003@lehigh-nospam.edu...>
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer very> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.
Hmmm ... actually they still seem to be around ... but perhaps not as widely available in North American as they once were? The mainstream mail order places don't seem to stock Cinelli, except for tape.
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks>> offer very little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder>> plans ahead and puts spacers in (either above or below the stem).>> These stems cannot just be loosened and raised like the old quill>> ones.
Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless> forks, with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily> adjust the stem height... I mean seat height is still adjustable,> why not stem height too? Given the wide variation in body> dimensions it's hard to see why one is important and the other> isn't!
I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering the many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I watched being machined out of the steel steer tube. Bar height is still adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers while head bearing adjustment has become easy and precise, no longer requiring special tools as in the past. For air shipping, I can turn my bars backward easily and above all, bar rigidity to the frame is shockingly better.
I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your> pointer - thanks.
Once you have a bar height, it is not something you change often. I certainly haven't changed mine in decades.
BTW whatever happened to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely> finished.
Like Schwinn, the name outlived the man and has little to do with Cino Cinelli, Sig. Sacchini, and Sig. Valsassina who built the frames.
I never liked the quill stem for its major functional failings and its corrosion permanence in the steertube that it expanded with corrosive action. Interview some frame builders who had to remove stems.
"StaceyJ" wrote:> Part of the trend can be traced to the migration of the brifters/levers> from the front of the drops to the tops (see any recent picture of> Lance to see what I mean). This upward migration of brifters/levers> allows the bars to be dropped for increased aerodynamics while> retaining the relative comfort of riding on the hoods. A further> advantage for the go-fast crowd is an extremely aero position while in> the drops, and a somewhat lower Petacchi-esque position while sprinting> on the hooks. All in all, it comes down to racer-chaser fashion> statements.
I checked out the Lance Armstrong/Graham Watson photo book "Images of a Champion" from the library a few weeks ago. It chronicles his career from the early 90's to 2004. Armstrong's brake levers moved into the higher position with his first threadless steer tube bike. Coincidence? Anyway, it works well enough that he hasn't gone back to the old setup.
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and > large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This > results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer > useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember. > When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at > or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than > that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like > me.
Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.
Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional > stems?>
I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that hinted that > (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more comfortable > riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a traditional bar > if you prefer the hunched over position).
The style pendulum swung to very small frames. This is really mountain bike styling. If you look at racers today you see extremely long seatposts. This is what generates the long drop to the bars. You can change this by going back to old-style larger frames, or raising the bars.
Old-style quill stems have a number of shortcomings, but, if you want to, you can use a quill stem with a threadless fork. Sheldon Brown has done this with a 1 1/8 fork:
I've done it with a 1" fork. He omits the star fangled nut and sets the headset preload with body weight, I drove my nut down a bit and use a longer bolt (with spacers).
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:47:15 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more >>drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.
That's assuming that any drop was appropriate to start with. I am 6'4" tall with long legs and a short torso. I find it most effective to have the bars at about the same height as the seat, with my primary hand position on the brake hoods. Anything lower than that, or with my hands in the drops, and I get better aerodynamics but poorer breathing ability. For me, breathing is more important than aerodynamics. I can always use the drops for the occasional sprint.
Your mileage may vary. So may everyone else's. That's why they make things adjustable.
"Dave Ings" <ings@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:ubfce.13616$gA5.702062@news20.bellglobal.com...> Hi all,>
I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a mountain > bike last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used to own > two 70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full Campy/DuraAce etc.>
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by > and large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This > results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer > useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I > remember. When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height > should be at or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 > inches lower than that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall > (over 6') riders like me.>
Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional > stems?>
Nitto still makes gorgeous and strong quill stems (Pearl). A Google search will get you 2-3 shops that still stock them. Buy several. -Mike
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in newsan.2005.04.29.04.14.22.981312@lehigh-nospam.edu:
Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference> between the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the> lack of adjustability of bar height.
Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around, provided you have enough steerer tube showing. Stems are also available in different rises. Stems can also be flipped over to raise or lower the stem. I've had more trouble getting the bars up high enough with a threaded stem (because the quills are so short) than with a threadless stem (I made sure the LBS didn't cut the steerer tube before I bought the bike).
Greg Berchin wrote:> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:47:15 -0400, Peter Cole> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:>
Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more >>>drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.>
That's assuming that any drop was appropriate to start with. I am> 6'4" tall with long legs and a short torso. I find it most> effective to have the bars at about the same height as the seat,> with my primary hand position on the brake hoods. Anything lower> than that, or with my hands in the drops, and I get better> aerodynamics but poorer breathing ability. For me, breathing is> more important than aerodynamics. I can always use the drops for> the occasional sprint.
That sounds a bit unusual. My breathing isn't affected by back angle, my limiting factor is my thighs hitting my ribs at top of stroke. Conventional wisdom says that cycling isn't breathing limited. I tend to believe that as I don't see that even having been a smoker for many years. Nearly all of the arguments I've seen made for high bars are for back or neck pain relief.
Steven M. Scharf 29 April 2005 19:42:40 [ permanent link ]
"Dave Ings" <ings@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:RHhce.12347$BW6.1110141@news20.bellglobal.com...> Interesting.>
Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless
forks,> with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily adjust the stem> height ... I mean seat height is still adjustable, why not stem height too?> Given the wide variation in body dimensions it's hard to see why one is> important and the other isn't!>
I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your pointer -> thanks.
The SpeedLifter is an even better solution, but apparently not sold in the U.S. yet.
Steven M. Scharf 29 April 2005 19:44:19 [ permanent link ]
"Mike DeMicco" <blaster186REMOVETHIS@comcast.net> wrote in message
Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around,
provided> you have enough steerer tube showing.
Well that's the big problem. Too many manufacturers are cutting the steerer tubes very short, rather than leaving them longer and letting the shop cut them, if necessary.
Greg Berchin wrote:> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:03:30 -0400, Peter Cole> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:>
Conventional wisdom says that cycling isn't breathing limited. >
I don't understand your reasoning. If you can't fill your lungs,> then you can't provide oxygen to your muscles, and they can't do> their job.
It's not my reasoning. Developed cyclists normally max out continuous power through cardio-vascular limits. Ususally there is still significant extra lung capacity at this point.
The other thing is that I don't understand how back angle affects the ability to fill the lungs.
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:>
I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering>> the many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I>> watched being machined out of the steel steer tube.>
Gee Jobst, I guess you choose to ignore the threadless aluminum stems> that have failed. Google "Syncros". As for machining out a stem,> another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a long> way.
Forget all that -- NICE POSTING FORMAT! Figure something out?
You could be describing me & my preferences too! -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"Greg Berchin" <76145.2455@compuswerve.com> wrote in message news:ukg471p20jndbs8bob67ueprtv2d93cp9b@4ax.com...
That's assuming that any drop was appropriate to start with. I am> 6'4" tall with long legs and a short torso. I find it most> effective to have the bars at about the same height as the seat,> with my primary hand position on the brake hoods.
David L. Johnson 29 April 2005 23:20:29 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:56:39 +0000, Mike DeMicco wrote:
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in> newsan.2005.04.29.04.14.22.981312@lehigh-nospam.edu: >
Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference>> between the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the>> lack of adjustability of bar height. >
Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around, provided > you have enough steerer tube showing.
Go to your local shop. Look at the bikes on display. Most have no spacers and no room for spacers.
Stems are also available in different> rises.
Cheap ones are all 6 degrees or so. You either have to pay $50 or find someone with a riser stem. Not an immediate or cheap solution.
Stems can also be flipped over to raise or lower the stem.
So, 2 height options are better than being able to set it where you want it?
ÂI've> had more trouble getting the bars up high enough with a threaded stem> (because the quills are so short) than with a threadless stem (I made> sure the LBS didn't cut the steerer tube before I bought the bike).
Most people don't get a chance to have the shop not cut the fork too short. Quill stems are as easily available with very long quills as riser threadless stems are. Sheldon Brown has them in every extension, from 50mm to 120mm, $39.95. I got one for my wife's bike some time back, with an even longer quill (steel, which makes sense) for like $10.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. -- _`\(,_ | Michael Crichton (_)/ (_) |
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in newsan.2005.04.29.19.20.27.55964@lehigh-nospam.edu:
Go to your local shop. Look at the bikes on display. Most have no> spacers and no room for spacers.
So? Don't buy a bike like that. Threaded stems also come with very short quills. This whole argument is getting silly. It all depends. Both designs are adjustable within limits. Buy what you want, but the reality is that threaded stems and threaded forks and bikes with threaded forks are getting hard to find.
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message newsan.2005.04.29.01.45.58.36003@lehigh-nospam.edu...> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:27:13 -0400, Dave Ings wrote:>
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by
large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This> > results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer> > useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I
remember.>
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer very> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.>
But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork to fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed. I think the threadless headsets are a godsend---they're easy to swap, and you can remove the bar without removing levers and tape.
Michael Warner 30 April 2005 19:06:07 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:27:13 -0400, Dave Ings wrote:
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and > large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This > results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer > useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember. > When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at > or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than > that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like > me.
I would suggest that if you can't get the bars any higher than that relative to the saddle, with the factory stem flipped over to give a bit of rise, then you're looking at frames that are too small for you.
You may need a more angled stem to get the bars as high as the saddle, but you probably wouldn't want them any higher than that anyway.
David L. Johnson 30 April 2005 20:05:12 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:13:18 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
I've dealt with a frozen stem. >
Pieceafreeking cake compared to a loose star nut.>
So what do I do with this headset screw that won't really loosen or tighten just> turns making a grindy noise inside the head tube and is too secure to just pull> out?>
Every technology has its downside. Not all have a sufficient up side. We know by> the longevity of the quill that it wasn't all that bad.>
I wouldn't be surprised if the present threadless system were gone in another> ten years.
If manufacturers and dealers would set bikes up with adequate spacers, solving the adjustment problem for threadless headsets, then the kludge that is the star nut would be the worst part of the threadless design. Since it really doesn't do all that much, it would be easy to replace with a better system. Now, if they could only do something about the fact that threadless headsets/stems look so clunky, we might be getting somewhere.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies
Steven M. Scharf 30 April 2005 20:11:03 [ permanent link ]
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
I guess you needed to be around in the 90s when threadless was first> introduced. The fork makers, like Rockshox, went from making about a> dozen different fork steerers to one. 1 1/8inch and threadless. Same> for other carbon fork makers, Kestrel went from many to one, 1 inch and> threadless. If ya can't imagine a cost savings there, welll....
It was a great idea, just poorly executed, both due to the lack of adjustability, and the tendency for the bicycle manufacturers to cut the steer tubes too short.
I just experienced another "product improvement." Remodeling the bathrooms in my house, I found that almost no shower/bath controls can control pressure anymore, it's either on or off. The rationale is that with flow-control shower heads, the pressure is already so low that there is no need for pressure control, and when filling a bathtub you don't ever want anything but full-on. Of course the real reason for the change is that it's too expensive to implement anti-scald with variable pressure. I finally found one control system that was still okay, but it was about $400 (which is cheap compared to the high end separate components from Hansgrohe).
I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed the cost> of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the consumer. You> can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the problem, but> these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
This is a good comment, and I will keep it in mind when I'm shopping. However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes outfitted (displayed) like this
in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars *well* below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the length my 70s bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are low. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"Michael Warner" <see@homepage.com> wrote in message news:1rsm2sckkel4v$.d6k5ni4vu3g.dlg@40tude.net...
I would suggest that if you can't get the bars any higher than that> relative to the saddle, with the factory stem flipped over to> give a bit of rise, then you're looking at frames that are too small> for you.>
Squid-in-Training Phil 30 April 2005 22:02:31 [ permanent link ]
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message news:1114869434.407923.314820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:>
You don't have to buy a stupid stem. You can get one that has only>> one size of socket head screw and adjust bar height, angle and> bearing>> clearance with the same little allen wrench and let that pair of>> clumsy octagonal foot long wrenches remain on the shelf. Besides,>> those wrenches did not easily arrive on a proper bearing adjustment.>>
I don't. I have quill stems on all 4 of my bicycles(Grammo, Moots,> Cinelli(2)), along with Deltas on my main Merckx. I have never had a> stem freeze into the fork, have never felt they were soft of flexy or> overly under rigid(two are titanium).
You work in a bike shop and maintain your equipment better than most people. Most people shouldn't have to maintain their bikes at bike-shop level.
Squid-in-Training Phil 30 April 2005 22:10:19 [ permanent link ]
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:rWNce.1552$V01.1273@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message>
Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked>> question....and the cycling public bought it, once again.>
Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do we get> rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for every different> size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they had to rationalize it,> and they came up with fantastic stories about how horrible the quill stem> was, and yes, many people have fell for the lies.
Lies??? How can you say that when threadless actually makes it easier to swap forks out between bikes? It is a FACT, not a lie.
I switched out a fork with one of my MTB friends who wanted to try out my rigid fork. How long was the actual fork swap? Well, since Giant puts split-ring crown races on their headsets, about 45 seconds. How long would it take if it were threaded? Much longer. After she tried out my rigid fork, she wanted to switch back. How long would it take if it were threaded? None at all, because we wouldn't be able to switch back because the steerer would have been too short!
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face it... 1 1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was using differing thread pitches and diameters ever productive? Remember, we lost the Mars Polar Explorer due to differing standards.
Squid-in-Training Phil 30 April 2005 22:15:58 [ permanent link ]
I don't see what is so surprising about this. Reality is that most new> bikes come with 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers, as with the OP. So the> only "adjustment" possible is to go out and buy a new stem. If you get it> right when you start, great, but if you have to fiddle with your position,> as people do with a new bike, you have to get more than one stem.
We deal Giant and Specialized bikes. None of them, even the top-of-the-line road bikes, have 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers. They all come with 15mm (three 5mm spacers) under the stem. What brands are you talking about?
Squid-in-Training Phil 30 April 2005 22:24:10 [ permanent link ]
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message news:1174lknfj3sac08@corp.supernews.com...>
"Dave Ings" <ings@sympatico.ca> wrote in message> news:ubfce.13616$gA5.702062@news20.bellglobal.com...>> Hi all,>>
I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a> mountain bike>> last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used> to own two>> 70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full> Campy/DuraAce etc.>>
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is> that by and>> large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical> direction). This>> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over,> with fewer>> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems> that I remember.>> When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height> should be at>> or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6> inches lower than>> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over> 6') riders like>> me.>>
Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of> traditional>> stems?>>
I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that> hinted that>> (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more> comfortable>> riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a> traditional bar>> if you prefer the hunched over position).>>
Looking forward to being brought up to date!>
The deal with the Cinelli 1R stem is that it had, IIRC, a -17> degree rise and a fairly short quill, so even if you jacked it up> all the way, you did not get much above the headset. With modern> threadless stems, you can get lots of rise. I put a threadless> fork on an old custom steel frame that previously had a 1R stem,> swapped in a - 6 degree stem, flipped that over and have lots of> rise. I can flip it the other way, add some spacers and get> something a little racier -- and still more rise than the 1R.> Quills can get stuck; it is a PITA to have to untape your bars to> swap stems (if you are experimenting with reach), and all in all,> the threadless stem with the two or four bolt face-plate is far> more convenient, IMO.
Keep in mind, however, that there are a few quill stems with removable faceplates, namely the ones by Dimension and Profile Design, both of which are basically the same thing.
Why would I ever want to do this with a road bike (just asking)? I can see the point with moutain bikes, due to their different suspension options. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil@phil.phil> wrote in message news:fSPce.19229>
Lies??? How can you say that when threadless actually makes it easier to > swap forks out between bikes? It is a FACT, not a lie.>
Does that imply a total vertical adjustment play of 15 mm? That's a very small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem I owned way back when had much more vertical play than this. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil@phil.phil> wrote in message news:yXPce.41259
road bikes, have 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers. They all come with > 15mm (three 5mm spacers) under the stem. What brands are you talking > about?
Squid-in-Training Phil 30 April 2005 22:54:32 [ permanent link ]
"Dave Ings" <ings@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:V4Qce.16730$BW6.1421183@news20.bellglobal.com...> Why would I ever want to do this with a road bike (just asking)? I can see > the point with moutain bikes, due to their different suspension options.
A road rider in a race here in downtown Gainesville absolutely splintered his carbon fork in half in the morning. He came down to the bike shop, and within 8 minutes he was back out to downtown for his next race at noon.
Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked>>> question... and the cycling public bought it, once again.
Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do>> we get rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for>> every different size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they>> had to rationalize it, and they came up with fantastic stories>> about how horrible the quill stem was, and yes, many people have>> fell for the lies.
Lies??? How can you say that when threadless actually makes it> easier to swap forks out between bikes? It is a FACT, not a lie.
I switched out a fork with one of my MTB friends who wanted to try> out my rigid fork. How long was the actual fork swap? Well, since> Giant puts split-ring crown races on their headsets, about 45> seconds. How long would it take if it were threaded? Much longer.> After she tried out my rigid fork, she wanted to switch back. How> long would it take if it were threaded? None at all, because we> wouldn't be able to switch back because the steerer would have been> too short!
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face> it... 1 1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was> using differing thread pitches and diameters ever productive?> Remember, we lost the Mars Polar Explorer due to differing> standards.
Quite my thinking...
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and mechanical robustness.
The lame excuses that it requires a raft of different Allen keys, that these stems break, that they are not adjustable in height and all the other indirect criticisms that should go to compact frames, shoddy stem brands, and misunderstanding of the use of these stems.
Finally aesthetics raises its head and I think that is where the problem lies. Many people have become accustomed to the appearance of the Cinelli handlebar stem and believe that is the way a stem should look. I find the threadless steertube and stem equally elegant but prefer them because they are more functionally useful.
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discusion. It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether steams and extenders are interchangable between road and mountain bikes. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:_cRce.86$W3.380@typhoon.sonic.net...
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face> it... 1 1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained improvements> that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the corroded stem, ease of> bearing adjustment, changing handlebars without removing bar tape and> brake lever, switching forks and mechanical robustness.
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discusion. It's > helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:>
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem or > instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I might have > read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether steams and extenders > are interchangable between road and mountain bikes.
Many stems have an aluminium sleeve that allows it to work with both 1 in and 1 1/8 in steerer tubes.
Most road bikes nowadays come with 1 1/8 in threadless. The extra 1/8 in makes a lot a difference as concerns strength. The older 1 in steerer tubes are generally CrMo steel.
Sorry I know nothing about MTB steerer tube sizes ...
/Robert (still riding with steel fork, steel steerer)
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face>> it... 1-1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained>> improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the>> corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars>> without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and>> mechanical robustness.
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion.> It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem> or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I> might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether> steams and extenders are interchangeable between road and mountain> bikes.
Better quality stems offer a 1/16" inch wall collared sleeve to fit both 1-1/8" and 1" steertubes.
When choosing a stem I believe one should select one with clamp redundancy, two steertube clamp screws and four handlebar retainer screws so that if any single screw strips or fails for whatever reason, the handlebar will remain securely attached to the bicycle.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com> wrote:
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message>newsan.2005.04.29.01.45.58.36003@lehigh-nospam.edu...>>
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer very>> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and>> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just>> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.>>
But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork to>fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed. I think the>threadless headsets are a godsend---they're easy to swap, and you can remove>the bar without removing levers and tape.
I think this is largely a factor of where you live and the fashion around the LBS(s). I've seen far too many bikes without spacers on the LBS floors; as a matter of fact, last fall was the first time I can remember seeing spacers on a threadless fork, and it was at an REI 600 miles from home.
If every LBS (not just the better ones near where you live) swapped the stems, added spacers, and only then cut the fork to fit the buyer, these discussions would shrink drastically. Since many LBSs don't do any of the above, those of us for whom they are the _local_ bike shops think threadless stems are the work of Stan.
And BTW, the savings to the fork (and bicycle) manufuacturers end up pushing the inventory management problems to the LBS, who have to (or at least should) stock the array of stems you envision as being typical, at least for "reputable dealers."
Very nice frame but the largest size available is 58 cm ... which is several cm too small for me.
In this respect, nothing seems to have changed since the 70s since was my experience way back then that European frame builders seemed to deny the existence of cyclists over 6 feet tall. -- Regards, Dave Ings, Toronto, Canada
"John Dacey" <jdacey@businesscycles.com> wrote in message
"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message news:opv771dms90c1vit0h018mvetrjr06o5rt@4ax.com...> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com>> wrote:>
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message> >newsan.2005.04.29.01.45.58.36003@lehigh-nospam.edu...> >>
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer
very> >> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and> >> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just> >> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.> >>
But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork
fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed. I think the> >threadless headsets are a godsend---they're easy to swap, and you can
remove> >the bar without removing levers and tape.>
I think this is largely a factor of where you live and the fashion> around the LBS(s). I've seen far too many bikes without spacers on> the LBS floors; as a matter of fact, last fall was the first time I> can remember seeing spacers on a threadless fork, and it was at an REI> 600 miles from home.>
If every LBS (not just the better ones near where you live) swapped> the stems, added spacers, and only then cut the fork to fit the buyer,> these discussions would shrink drastically. Since many LBSs don't do> any of the above, those of us for whom they are the _local_ bike shops> think threadless stems are the work of Stan.>
Patrick--
I think this depends on just how one buys the bicycle. If you're lucky enough to find a bike on a LBS's floor that fits, then I guess it's likely the steerer tube has already been cut. But does this apply to framesets? I'm not familiar how framesets and forks are shipped to LBS. I'm assuming they're shipped fully uncut, but I don't know. It would be logical to assume they're shipped uncut, leaving it up to the LBS to cut the steerer to fit the rider.
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face>>> it... 1-1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was>
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained>>> improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the>>> corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars>>> without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and>>> mechanical robustness.>
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion.>> It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:>
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem>> or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I>> might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether>> steams and extenders are interchangeable between road and mountain>> bikes.>
Better quality stems offer a 1/16" inch wall collared sleeve to fit> both 1-1/8" and 1" steertubes.
Well, "road" stems do, but "mountain" stems generally do not. This is because the 1 1/8" threaded steerers were established before threadless came along. So there are few, if any, 1" threadless steerers on mountain bikes.
Otherwise, "road" and "mountain" stems are interchangeable.
Now if I could only find a sleeve to fit my weird 1 1/16" Klein steerer. (Don't worry, AFAIK it's the only one this size.)
When choosing a stem I believe one should select one with clamp> redundancy, two steertube clamp screws and four handlebar retainer> screws so that if any single screw strips or fails for whatever> reason, the handlebar will remain securely attached to the bicycle.
It's a good idea. Both my bikes' stems are a hinged design, one with an actual hinge on top of the handlebar clamp and two bolts below, the other with interlocking edges on top and a single bolt below. They both work well, don't creak, and are easier to adjust. As you say two bolts on the bottom are better, but the hinge on top seems fine to me.
Well, "road" stems do, but "mountain" stems generally do not. This is because> the 1 1/8" threaded steerers were established before threadless came along. So> there are few, if any, 1" threadless steerers on mountain bikes.
Just so you can sleep at night, I did have a 1" threadless suspension fork at one time, around 1993. Amp Research F2, Syncros stem- still have the stem.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
And BTW, the savings to the fork (and bicycle) manufuacturers end up> pushing the inventory management problems to the LBS, who have to (or> at least should) stock the array of stems you envision as being> typical, at least for "reputable dealers."
Where customers expect, somewhat legitimately, that the LBS should not be charging anything extra for the bits and pieces necessary to fit the bicycle to them.
Does that imply a total vertical adjustment play of 15 mm? That's a very >> small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem I >> owned way back when had much more vertical play than this.>
For most riders, that's all you need. With the older folk, or the ones > with fused neck vertebrae (lots of these actually), the riser stem pops > in.>
In any case, I was commenting on the 0-spacer comment mentioned by the > previous poster, but yes, quill stems usually have more adjustment than > this, but can't be flipped.
The Trek spec is for 4 *centimeters* of spacers under the stem, which allows us to accomplish a wider range of adjustment than the majority of quill stems. I'm really surprised that both Giant and Specialized allow for ony 1.5cm. Sure, many will get by with that, but many will not. Why drop those people who need more height out of the sales equation?
In this case, often the retailer has to absorb the cost of the bits and> pieces for modifications to the stem and height. If a customer says, "the> bars are too low, I'm not buying this bike," the retailer will explain how> thet can change the height with a different stem and/or an extender, and/or> a different fork. If the customer agrees to these changes, often the store> cannot get the customer to pay for them, since it's not like they're buying> accessories.
In my case, I've had to modify stock bicycles to suit my height. I've paid for extenders and hi-rise quill stems, even on new bikes. It's not reasonable to expect dealers to swap forks (except perhaps on very expensive bikes) since they would have little use for the short ones. Swapping stems is another matter. That doesn't seem like a huge burden for the LBS.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:07:17 -0400, Peter Cole> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:>
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:>>
Peter Cole wrote:>>
Thanks for the economics primer, but I don't think it's quite that simple.>>
Nobody ever does until they run a business.>>
Thanks for the insight.>>
What makes you assume I don't now, or never have, run a business?>>
Never mind, I think the central issue is the difficulty/cost of fitting >>bikes with either technology. I'll claim a bit of expertise there.>
Er, your econmic insights?
I think I already gave them. In an unrestricted market, cost savings will get passed on. In the context of delivering the same end product, different approaches can have different intrinsic costs. To deliver a properly fitted bike, in simple terms, you have 3 options: Fit at the factory, fit at the retailer, or fit at home. I think that threadless stems facilitate the second option, and this is the cheapest approach. It also gives a greater role for the LBS in the value chain, which is why I can't understand complaints from that quarter. Swapping stems and moving spacers around is just not that big a deal cost-wise for the LBS. Getting perfect fit from the factory, or having an average cyclist tweak fit at home is just not practical -- nor economical.
Dave Ings wrote:> This is a good comment, and I will keep it in mind when I'm shopping. > However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes outfitted (displayed) > like this>
in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars *well* > below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the length my 70s > bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are low.
The bad news is that, yes, they're foisting this crap on consumers. the good news is that you don't have to buy into it and there are plenty alternatives. Lastly, despite all the moaning and groaning I hear on this thread, no one is forced to buy into any of this silly setups.
BTW, did anyone read the Grant Peterson article in Bicycle Retailer?
This is a good comment, and I will keep it in mind when I'm shopping. >> However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes outfitted >> (displayed) like this>>
in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars >> *well* below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the >> length my 70s bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are low.>
The bad news is that, yes, they're foisting this crap on consumers. the > good news is that you don't have to buy into it and there are plenty > alternatives. Lastly, despite all the moaning and groaning I hear on > this thread, no one is forced to buy into any of this silly setups.
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically racing bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't race, it's probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many non-racers buy racing bikes is the real question.
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face>>>> it... 1-1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was>>
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained>>>> improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the>>>> corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars>>>> without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and>>>> mechanical robustness.>>
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion.>>> It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:>>
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem>>> or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I>>> might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether>>> steams and extenders are interchangeable between road and mountain>>> bikes.>>
Better quality stems offer a 1/16" inch wall collared sleeve to fit>> both 1-1/8" and 1" steertubes.>
Well, "road" stems do, but "mountain" stems generally do not. This is because>the 1 1/8" threaded steerers were established before threadless came along. So>there are few, if any, 1" threadless steerers on mountain bikes.>
Otherwise, "road" and "mountain" stems are interchangeable.>
Now if I could only find a sleeve to fit my weird 1 1/16" Klein steerer. (Don't>worry, AFAIK it's the only one this size.)
Hah, I'm lucky. I've got the Klien MTB that was designed to be compatible with other company's forks and fit into the marketplace effortlessly. That's why my Rascal has a 1" steerer!!!!
This is a good comment, and I will keep it in mind when I'm>>> shopping. However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes>>> outfitted (displayed) like this
in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars>>> *well* below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the>>> length my 70s bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are>>> low.
The bad news is that, yes, they're foisting this crap on>> consumers. the good news is that you don't have to buy into it and>> there are plenty alternatives. Lastly, despite all the moaning and>> groaning I hear on this thread, no one is forced to buy into any of>> this silly setups.
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically> racing bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't> race, it's probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many> non-racers buy racing bikes is the real question.
They way you say that, I get the impression this group is full of old farts that can't sit on a bicycle for any length of time. Racing bicycles are the shape they are because that is the best position for long distance active riding. I've been touring on one for many years and find no fault with the positions it offers. Maybe the bicycles in question are not the right size.
Squid-in-Training Phil 1 May 2005 22:19:58 [ permanent link ]
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Wx_ce.3145$zu.2543@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...>>> Does that imply a total vertical adjustment play of 15 mm? That's a very >>> small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem >>> I owned way back when had much more vertical play than this.>>
For most riders, that's all you need. With the older folk, or the ones >> with fused neck vertebrae (lots of these actually), the riser stem pops >> in.>>
In any case, I was commenting on the 0-spacer comment mentioned by the >> previous poster, but yes, quill stems usually have more adjustment than >> this, but can't be flipped.>
The Trek spec is for 4 *centimeters* of spacers under the stem, which > allows us to accomplish a wider range of adjustment than the majority of > quill stems. I'm really surprised that both Giant and Specialized allow > for ony 1.5cm. Sure, many will get by with that, but many will not. Why > drop those people who need more height out of the sales equation?
Good point. There are some, however, that would like a lower position without spacers on top, meaning cutting a steerer tube and creating more work for us. There's always a price for flexibility.
Usually when we have to raise a stem, the customer wants it raised a whole lot, so we have to resort to the 60-degrees or the adjustables.
Squid-in-Training Phil 1 May 2005 22:24:55 [ permanent link ]
They way you say that, I get the impression this group is full of old> farts that can't sit on a bicycle for any length of time.
Wait a minute... it's not??? ;)
Racing> bicycles are the shape they are because that is the best position for> long distance active riding. I've been touring on one for many years> and find no fault with the positions it offers. Maybe the bicycles in> question are not the right size.
In my opinion, it's more of a problem of the riders (young/old) not getting in enough miles to get used to it. I myself am a victim of this.
Usually when we have to raise a stem, the customer wants> it raised a whole lot, so we have to resort to the 60-degrees> or the adjustables.
I've often wondered why replaceable steerers aren't used more often. Many MTB forks have bolt-in or press-fit steerers that can be replaced. It shouldn't be hard to design a road crown that would allow steerers to be exchanged - even with the complication a caliper brake.
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:> Peter Cole writes:
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically>>racing bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't>>race, it's probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many>>non-racers buy racing bikes is the real question.>
They way you say that, I get the impression this group is full of old> farts that can't sit on a bicycle for any length of time. Racing> bicycles are the shape they are because that is the best position for> long distance active riding. I've been touring on one for many years> and find no fault with the positions it offers. Maybe the bicycles in> question are not the right size.
you will note that they are entirely different. Your bike has a fair amount of steerer above the frame, but not that much seatpost, the other example has a much larger height difference between the saddle and the bars. That's what people are complaining about. From the looks of your bike, you'd complain, too.
-snip- Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote: > Keep in mind, however, that there are a few quill stems with removable> faceplates, namely the ones by Dimension and Profile Design, both of which > are basically the same thing.
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:> Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the> retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum> frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.
So that's 5,000 dealers on one side, and two of us on the other.
I've often wondered why replaceable steerers aren't used more often. Many> MTB forks have bolt-in or press-fit steerers that can be replaced. It> shouldn't be hard to design a road crown that would allow steerers to be> exchanged - even with the complication a caliper brake.>
James Thomson
Weight & durability. You're looking at an industry serving a customer base that believes a difference of 10 grams justifies spending large amounts of $$$. The road bike fork manufacturers are killing themselves off trying to make things ever-lighter while still maintaining reasonable durability. There is still an assumption that a lightweight fork should last as long as the frame, and so far, I don't believe a fork manufacturer has said that shouldn't be the case (by way of severely-limiting the warranty and giving a lifespan estimation).
Mountain bike forks are another matter. Given hard-enough use, a mountain bike fork *will* eventually fail. As forks age in the field, manufacturers are seeing this more and more. So the downward weight spiral has been reversed, and if something makes for a better fork at the expense of a bit of extra weight, it's not seen as a big deal.
But the other issue is that it (replaceable steer columns) simply doesn't address something that's all-that-often called for. If it added just $2 to manufacturing costs, and wasn't seen as being a very big advantage (something that would literally sell more bikes), it isn't going to happen.
"James Thomson" <yosnappyj@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42752032$0$13853$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net...> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil@phil.phil> wrote:>
Usually when we have to raise a stem, the customer wants>> it raised a whole lot, so we have to resort to the 60-degrees>> or the adjustables.>
I've often wondered why replaceable steerers aren't used more often. Many> MTB forks have bolt-in or press-fit steerers that can be replaced. It> shouldn't be hard to design a road crown that would allow steerers to be> exchanged - even with the complication a caliper brake.>
On Sun, 01 May 2005 16:08:43 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:>> They way you say that, I get the impression this group is full of old>> farts that can't sit on a bicycle for any length of time. Racing>> bicycles are the shape they are because that is the best position for>> long distance active riding. I've been touring on one for many years>> and find no fault with the positions it offers. Maybe the bicycles in>> question are not the right size.>
Jobst, it looks like your bike has 3-4 inches between the top of the head tube and the stem. Is this spacers, or is this a threaded to threadless adapter?
And if you don't mind an impertinent question, if you were buying a new, stock bicycle today, would you choose a stack of spacers or a high angle stem to get the bars up?
On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:11:04 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically racing > bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't race, it's > probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many non-racers buy > racing bikes is the real question.
I don't think so. What are you calling a "racing bike"? Any road bike? Any road bike with Chorus or better components? What exactly is the line? Unless you are suggesting that we should all ride hybrids on the road (no, thanks), this needs some examination.
Road bikes are made for, gee, riding on roads. Lots of club riders use them in exactly that way. Now, whether they _need_ the carbon bits, or the short wheelbase and tight clearances is open to question, but unless they do a lot of loaded touring, they won't do as well with a touring bike, and of course hybrids and mountain bikes would just add pain to things like centuries.
I don't think very many people race my brand of road bike (Habanero), and IMO it's very well suited for the sort of riding I do, mostly club rides, centuries, and the occasional loaded tour. Is this a "racing bike"?
Now, the links offered a bit up-thread show fairly ridiculous bikes, mostly because they do not allow a decent position for most folks. But there are lots of road bikes that do offer a decent position. I don't see that those are better-suited to racing than many bikes with much better position.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve _`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. -- J. R. R. Tolkein
On 1 May 2005 06:03:26 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:>> >
I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed>the cost>> > of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the>consumer. You>> > can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the>problem, but>> > these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.>>
Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?>
Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the>retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum>frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.
Dear Peter,
By "ends," do you mean these things that attach to the ends of mountain-bike handlebars?
On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:31:14 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of>>craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick>>on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old>>Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been>>the better for it.>
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived and fine> machines, but the workmanship was never anything special. They truly did not> suck, but they were never particularly well crafted either.
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful, with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs, well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment about the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in>>> terms of craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for>>> in order to stick on a frame that had nothing to do with that>>> tradition. Most of the old Italian marks have gone through that>>> transformation, and none have been the better for it.
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived>> and fine machines, but the workmanship was never anything>> special. They truly did not suck, but they were never particularly>> well crafted either.
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful,> with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs,> well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment about> the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.
That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the sloping fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience. This fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a feathered transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress concentration through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two of these forks break at that junction and subsequently demanded external feathered lugs for my forks.
In my estimation that fork crown was a major disservice to bicycling and it still holds many adherents who are not aware of its weakness. I hope they don't ride as much as I did with my forks and find out about it. Fortunately fork blades generally fail one at a time and not from braking either, but rather from vertical shock (forward).
The only road bike technology/design> > change I'm perplexed by is that by and> > large, modern stems are really short (in the> > vertical direction). This results in a riding> > position that's incredibly hunched over, with> > fewer useful riding positions than the old> > Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.> > When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was> > that the stem height should be at or slightly> > below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-> > 6 inches lower than that. This seems like a> > particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like me.>
The traditional Cinelli stems (which I still use - e.g., Cinelli Model> 1A and XA) only allowed a height adjustment of about an inch, and> weren't very tall.>
Part of the problem is that people are buying smaller frames which> makes it hard to get the bars up high. I have minimal standover> clearance on my 63cm c-c frame, and even with the Cinelli stem at the> max height line, the bars are about 2-1/2" below the saddle. Luckily,> that's where I like them.>
I have one undersized road bike in which the undersize experiment flopped. Was considering remedification via a tall long forward reach steel quill stem. How are those long stems with respect to durability? Do the longer ones ever bend or break?
Would the tall position above the top tube effect sprinting/climbing? Wouldn't a forward reach adversly impact handling?
Of course I could get ape handlebars, bannana seat, and stick shift and have the stingray style bike around.
Steven M. Scharf wrote:>>>>I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed>>>>the cost>>>>of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the>>>>consumer. You>>>>can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the>>>>problem, but>>>>these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
Peter Cole wrote:>>>Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?
<peter@vecchios.com> wrote:>>Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the>>retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum>>frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:> By "ends," do you mean these things that attach to the ends> of mountain-bike handlebars?> http://www.yellowjersey.org/lpends.jpg> If so, is there a technical reason for the exception, or is> it just too hard to find non-carbon ends?
On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:39:38 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:31:14 +0000, RonSonic wrote:>
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of>>>craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick>>>on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old>>>Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been>>>the better for it.>>
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived and fine>> machines, but the workmanship was never anything special. They truly did not>> suck, but they were never particularly well crafted either.>
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful, with>visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs, well-designed,>and well-built. I was going to make a comment about the finish, but>decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.
Yeah, we're on the same page. Well worth overlooking the finishing quirks.
On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:04:53 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
David L. Johnson writes:>
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in>>>> terms of craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for>>>> in order to stick on a frame that had nothing to do with that>>>> tradition. Most of the old Italian marks have gone through that>>>> transformation, and none have been the better for it.>
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived>>> and fine machines, but the workmanship was never anything>>> special. They truly did not suck, but they were never particularly>>> well crafted either.>
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful,>> with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs,>> well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment about>> the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.>
That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the sloping>fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience. This>fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it>connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel>forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage>the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a feathered>transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress concentration>through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two of these forks>break at that junction and subsequently demanded external feathered>lugs for my forks.>
In my estimation that fork crown was a major disservice to bicycling>and it still holds many adherents who are not aware of its weakness.>I hope they don't ride as much as I did with my forks and find out>about it. Fortunately fork blades generally fail one at a time and>not from braking either, but rather from vertical shock (forward).>
Jobst.Brandt@stanfordalumni.org
I have exactly that fork and crown. I probably don't put as many miles on it as you had and so far all's well. I do tend to do silly stuff like put on cross tires and bash around, but nothing too crazy. I'll at least know where to look for trouble.
On Sun, 01 May 2005 06:19:34 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
The Trek spec is for 4 *centimeters* of spacers under the stem, which allows > us to accomplish a wider range of adjustment than the majority of quill > stems. I'm really surprised that both Giant and Specialized allow for ony > 1.5cm.
My Giant TCR1 (large 2004) has 37mm of spacers - I just popped into the bedroom and measured it
Squid-in-Training Phil 2 May 2005 09:34:03 [ permanent link ]
narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only appropriate for > "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that that's the position > everyone should be riding in, otherwise they ought to buy a hybrid.
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in looking for a fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the position, and end up with a hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that they buy the race bike, and they don't ride at all. The wider tires and inherently upright position of the hybrid simply suit them better.
It's not actually worse than the typical angled setup. FWIW, the stem on that Cervelo appears to be a 0-degree stem, not a 17-degree. Thus, it's equivalent to a 125.5mm, -17 degree stem with 35.1mm of headset spacers, if the one on the Cervelo is 120mm long.
Squid-in-Training Phil 2 May 2005 09:43:44 [ permanent link ]
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message newsNgde.59$T3.431@typhoon.sonic.net...> David L. Johnson writes:>
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in>>>> terms of craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for>>>> in order to stick on a frame that had nothing to do with that>>>> tradition. Most of the old Italian marks have gone through that>>>> transformation, and none have been the better for it.>
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived>>> and fine machines, but the workmanship was never anything>>> special. They truly did not suck, but they were never particularly>>> well crafted either.>
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful,>> with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs,>> well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment about>> the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.>
That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the sloping> fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience. This> fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it> connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel> forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage> the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a feathered> transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress concentration> through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two of these forks> break at that junction and subsequently demanded external feathered> lugs for my forks.
On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:21:47 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Steven M. Scharf wrote:>>>>>I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed>>>>>the cost>>>>>of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the>>>>>consumer. You>>>>>can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the>>>>>problem, but>>>>>these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.>
Peter Cole wrote:>>>>Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?>
<peter@vecchios.com> wrote:>>>Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the>>>retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum>>>frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.>
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:>> By "ends," do you mean these things that attach to the ends>> of mountain-bike handlebars?>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/lpends.jpg>> If so, is there a technical reason for the exception, or is>> it just too hard to find non-carbon ends?>
Just to offend more deeply, the darned things are curved in >two planes now and change cross section along their length >for no apparent reason.>
News flash: Seatstays are in tension/compression. They don't >twist.
Dear Andrew,
Hmmm . . . maybe I was working too hard trying to understand "anything with carbon but ends" and should have read it as "butt ends" or something like that?
But(t) Peter's post still seems to be saying no to aluminum frames and anything with carbon in a thread(less) about headsets, so I'm still wondering if he means no carbon beyond maybe 1% in the steel, some carbon black in the tires, and some carbon in the inner tubes--no carbon handlebars, frames, rims, seat posts, and so forth.
David L. Johnson wrote:> On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:11:04 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:>
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically racing >>bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't race, it's >>probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many non-racers buy >>racing bikes is the real question.>
I don't think so. What are you calling a "racing bike"? Any road bike? > Any road bike with Chorus or better components? What exactly is the> line? Unless you are suggesting that we should all ride hybrids on the> road (no, thanks), this needs some examination.
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious (although that it seems not to be proves my point), a "racing bike" is a bike used for racing. That is, ridden in competitive events where speed is of singular importance.
Road bikes are made for, gee, riding on roads. Lots of club riders use> them in exactly that way. Now, whether they _need_ the carbon bits, or> the short wheelbase and tight clearances is open to question, but unless> they do a lot of loaded touring, they won't do as well with a touring> bike, and of course hybrids and mountain bikes would just add pain to> things like centuries.
Well, the context for my remarks was (as in the thread title) the actual setup of the bike, specifically a very large drop from saddle to bars. Digressing into all those other areas would be interesting, but off-thread.
Now, the links offered a bit up-thread show fairly ridiculous bikes,> mostly because they do not allow a decent position for most folks. But> there are lots of road bikes that do offer a decent position. I don't see> that those are better-suited to racing than many bikes with much better> position.
The beef is that too many bikes are set up new with big drops from saddle to bars. The only justification for this is to get a very flat back. Many people have no need for such a position on the bike, or may be unable to ride like that comfortably. The complaints continue that it's harder or more expensive to raise the bars with threadless steerers set up that way.
The need for/advantage of a flat back aerodynamic position depends on what type of riding even the competitive rider is trying to do. If you're not planning on riding any distance on the flats out of a pace line, then the aero position doesn't buy you anything.
I suppose you could buy a bike with a big drop and not be interested in going fast, but I think the intent of bikes like this is to race. That's why I call them racing bikes. I don't know why a non-racer would buy one, hence my question. It's similar to the question why someone would spend thousands to shave a little weight when they aren't riding competitively in events involving climbing. Those bikes are also specifically racing bikes.
"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message news:d63b719c5d8fmulel0bm80g7pcq35m0v6r@4ax.com...
Jobst, it looks like your bike has 3-4 inches between the top of the> head tube and the stem. Is this spacers, or is this a threaded to> threadless adapter?>
And if you don't mind an impertinent question, if you were buying a> new, stock bicycle today, would you choose a stack of spacers or a> high angle stem to get the bars up?
Looks like spacers. The problem is that most bike shops receive bicycles from the factory with the forks cut a lot shorter than that. Someone said that one manufacturer specified 4 cm, which is less only 1.6". I've lately seen some smaller manufacturers leave a lot more. Of course if the buyer wants lower bars, and doesn't like the idea of extra steer tube sticking out, this means more work for the shop, though it's pretty simple to do a cut.
Jobst, it looks like your bike has 3-4 inches between the top of the>> head tube and the stem. Is this spacers, or is this a threaded to>> threadless adapter?>>
And if you don't mind an impertinent question, if you were buying a>> new, stock bicycle today, would you choose a stack of spacers or a>> high angle stem to get the bars up?>
Looks like spacers. The problem is that most bike shops receive> bicycles from the factory with the forks cut a lot shorter than that.> Someone said that one manufacturer specified 4 cm, which is less only> 1.6". I've lately seen some smaller manufacturers leave a lot more.> Of course if the buyer wants lower bars, and doesn't like the idea of> extra steer tube sticking out, this means more work for the shop,> though it's pretty simple to do a cut.
A question to the bike shops : don't you have the option of getting bikes delivered with uncut steerer tubes ? I know that here, in France, one very large chain of bike shops has been getting all their bikes (including MTB's) with full-length forks. They had such a problem with the very low stem heights and the ugly solutions. They also recommend that you keep 1-3 cm of tube over the stem, for two reasons. 1) you may find that the first position is not as comfortable as you thought ; 2) it makes for a nice point in resale, so the new owner has room to play with.
BTW, the policy of this chain is free fitting, even if it is for your existing bike. They hope, I presume, to gain loyalty when the time comes for a possible client to buy. -- Bonne route,
Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine FR -- C'est pour les sens qu'on fait l'amour ; et c'est pour l'essence qu'on fait la guerre
The Trek spec is for 4 *centimeters* of spacers under the stem, which >> allows>> us to accomplish a wider range of adjustment than the majority of quill>> stems. I'm really surprised that both Giant and Specialized allow for ony>> 1.5cm.>
My Giant TCR1 (large 2004) has 37mm of spacers - I just popped into the> bedroom and measured it >
Maybe smaller frames have less.
Or, heaven forbid, some shops are cutting them down before they go on the floor.
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in>>>>> terms of craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid>>>>> for in order to stick on a frame that had nothing to do with>>>>> that tradition. Most of the old Italian marks have gone through>>>>> that transformation, and none have been the better for it.
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well>>>> conceived and fine machines, but the workmanship was never>>>> anything special. They truly did not suck, but they were never>>>> particularly well crafted either.
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful,>>> with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs,>>> well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment>>> about the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought>>> it up.
That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the sloping>> fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience.>> This fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it>> connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel>> forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage>> the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a>> feathered transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress>> concentration through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two>> of these forks break at that junction and subsequently demanded>> external feathered lugs for my forks.
That's the one. In olden times, a fork crown was made by overlapping the steertube and fork blades and wrapping a formed three holed fitting around them. The ends of the blades were closed by a thin flat cap. To shorten the fork blades and reach down to them with a solid steel crown was externally svelte but had no basis in function. Unfortunately it caught on for its appearance and there it is.
Old US fat tires bicycles of the 1940's etc used three or four flat three hole plates where the steertube and fork blades overlapped. Although this left stress concentrations, it was straight forward in design and made no style statement while addressing the basic problem.
Current unicrown forks with fork blades curves inward to the steertube where they are welded is a crude heavy manufacturing shortcut using far heavier fork blades that road bicycles used.
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:Hfsde.76$T3.661@typhoon.sonic.net...> Phil Lee writes:>
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean
something in> >>>>> terms of craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid> >>>>> for in order to stick on a frame that had nothing to do with> >>>>> that tradition. Most of the old Italian marks have gone through> >>>>> that transformation, and none have been the better for it.>
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well> >>>> conceived and fine machines, but the workmanship was never> >>>> anything special. They truly did not suck, but they were
never> >>>> particularly well crafted either.>
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was
awful,> >>> with visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs,> >>> well-designed, and well-built. I was going to make a comment> >>> about the finish, but decided to let that lie, until you brought> >>> it up.>
That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the
sloping> >> fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience.> >> This fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it> >> connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel> >> forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage> >> the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a> >> feathered transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress> >> concentration through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two> >> of these forks break at that junction and subsequently demanded> >> external feathered lugs for my forks.>
That's the one. In olden times, a fork crown was made by
overlapping> the steertube and fork blades and wrapping a formed three holed> fitting around them. The ends of the blades were closed by a thin> flat cap. To shorten the fork blades and reach down to them with a> solid steel crown was externally svelte but had no basis in function.> Unfortunately it caught on for its appearance and there it is.
The Cinelli fully sloping crown also weighed a ton. I had them on a couple bikes because I was enamored of the style. On one bike, the frame was crunched in a wall impact with the side of a car. The down tube of the bike buckled, but the fork remained pretty straight -- with no crack at the fork blade crown lug interface. I think one problem with this crown is that you have to dump a lot of heat into the fork to get the crown hot enough to get the brass to flow, so the joint is succeptible to overheating, which may have contributed to Jobst's failures. That in combination with the design makes them prone to breaking, but I still think that they can have a long service life if the the frame is well made and not cooked. -- Jay Beattie.
In article <1114869434.407923.314820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, peter@vecchios.com says...
I don't. I have quill stems on all 4 of my bicycles(Grammo, Moots,>Cinelli(2)), along with Deltas on my main Merckx. I have never had a>stem freeze into the fork, have never felt they were soft of flexy or>overly under rigid(two are titanium).
I too still ride quill stems and have never had any problems or complaints with them.
Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked>question....and the cycling public bought it, once again.
If you know the where your want your bars, they are an improvement in many ways. It is easier to adjust your headset. It is easier to swap the stem since most threadless stems are also front loading and don't require you to untape your bars and remove at least one brake lever. It is easier to cut a threadless steerer using a pipe cutter than it is to hack saw through a threaded steerer, at least it is easier for me.
wheesl outta boxes.
For many people there are not good wheel builders near them. For them these are godsend.
goes on..It is TIRESOME to try to refute the BS that comes from mags,>web sites, bike shops.
You can't stay in business if you don't sell product and service. Some can't sell service, so they try to sell product. -------------- Alex
In article <1114953027.666205.274840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, peter@vecchios.com says...>
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:> I find the threadless steertube and stem equally elegant but>> prefer them because they are more functionally useful.>>
Jobst.Brandt@stanfordalumni.org>
I guess I have to wonder what else you think looks 'elegant', if you>like the looks of a clunky, bolts out of the back, threadless stem.>
If ya like threadless looks, you must LOVE the way a delta brake looks.
I sure do. They look very elegant. ------------- Alex
What distinction do you find between carbon stay assemblies that are bonded and/or bolted to aluminum or titanium main triangles and those which are similarly bonded and bolted to carbon main triangles?
Absent the continuity of a true fully monococque carbon frame (of which there appears to be precious few), I can't readily identify how fitting a carbon seatstay or chainstay assembly on a Trek, Kestrel, Calfee, Bianchi , Parlee or other modular carbon frame would be any less gratuitous (as you define it above) as when fitted to a metal main triangle.
------------------------------- John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Since 1983 Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996. http://www.businesscycles.com
"Dave Ings" <ings@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:aqRce.15710$gA5.952579@news20.bellglobal.com...> I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discusion. It's> helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:>
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch
stem or> instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I might have> read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether steams and extenders> are interchangable between road and mountain bikes.> -- > Regards,> Dave Ings,> Toronto, Canada
The difference is in the bar clamp diameter, since most road bars are 26.0mm and most mountain bars are 25.4mm diameter. With a four-bolt/plate design, it really makes no difference, and either a road or a mountain stem would work with a road bar. Some would disagree on this, though. The new, non-conformist is the oversized-bar which, of course, requires an over-sized stem/bar clamp. It also requires over-sized clamps for your light, cyclometer, ringy-bell, etc. -- Jay Beattie.
------------------------------- John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida http://www.businesscycles.com Since 1983 Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996 -------------------------------
A Muzi Wrote: > >>>Steven M. Scharf wrote:> >>>>I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed> >>>>the cost> >>>>of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the> >>>>consumer. You> >>>>can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the> >>>>problem, but> >>>>these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.>
Peter Cole wrote:> >>>Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?>
<peter@vecchios.com> wrote:> >>Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the> >>retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum> >>frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.>
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:> > By "ends," do you mean these things that attach to the ends> > of mountain-bike handlebars?> > http://www.yellowjersey.org/lpends.jpg> > If so, is there a technical reason for the exception, or is> > it just too hard to find non-carbon ends?>
I've seen a few that have the carbon-aluminum inverted relative the usaerobike. Might that be more logical to have a rigid aluminum rear triangle to minimize drivetrain flex from the cranks?
Or might any benefit be more than offset mating the disparate materials into one bike?
On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:00:09 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious (although that it seems not to be > proves my point), a "racing bike" is a bike used for racing. That is, > ridden in competitive events where speed is of singular importance.
So, like the Trek's that USPS/Discovery ride. Lots of club cyclists also ride such bikes. So, they shouldn't? Why?
Well, the context for my remarks was (as in the thread title) the actual> setup of the bike, specifically a very large drop from saddle to bars.> Digressing into all those other areas would be interesting, but> off-thread.
Most road bikes do not have such a large drop.
The beef is that too many bikes are set up new with big drops from> saddle to bars. The only justification for this is to get a very flat> back. Many people have no need for such a position on the bike, or may> be unable to ride like that comfortably. The complaints continue that> it's harder or more expensive to raise the bars with threadless steerers> set up that way.
That is my beef as well, but it is a fault of whoever cuts the steerer, not so much the framebuilder.
one, hence my question. It's similar to the question why someone would> spend thousands to shave a little weight when they aren't riding> competitively in events involving climbing. Those bikes are also> specifically racing bikes.
So, it depends on how much it costs? A recreational cyclist would have a legitimate rationale for not wanting to carry more weight than is necessary up the hills. As to how much one should spend, that kind of depends.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. -- _`\(,_ | Michael Crichton (_)/ (_) |
That's a Raleigh, not a Cinelli, but roughly the same idea. Jobst's issue is that the internal lugs have no tapering, so come to an abrupt end which creates a stress riser.
An external lug would more likely be tapered, which would allow a gentler transition from the lug to the tube.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies
On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:34:03 +0000, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only appropriate for >> "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that that's the position >> everyone should be riding in, otherwise they ought to buy a hybrid.>
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in looking for a > fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the position, and end up with a > hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that they buy the race bike, and they don't > ride at all. The wider tires and inherently upright position of the hybrid > simply suit them better.
Horseshit. Speaking as an old fart. The problem is that what seems comfortable at first is not comfortable in the long run. The old farts (what, that means 2 years older than you???) need to understand that they will adapt to a more aerodynamic position. It is also preferable since an upright position puts too much pressure on your butt.
I'm not advocating the 5-inches (12 cm) below the saddle, but a reasonable road bike is far more comfortable in the long run than a hybrid, once you get used to it.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a _`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw (_)/ (_) |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 15:56:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
If you know the where your want your bars, they are an improvement in many> ways. It is easier to adjust your headset. It is easier to swap the stem> since most threadless stems are also front loading and don't require you> to untape your bars and remove at least one brake lever. It is easier to> cut a threadless steerer using a pipe cutter than it is to hack saw through> a threaded steerer, at least it is easier for me.
A hacksaw is too difficult for you??
For many people there are not good wheel builders near them. For them> these are godsend.
Sheldon will build wheels for you, and ship them out. half the price of wheels in boxes.
goes on..It is TIRESOME to try to refute the BS that comes from mags,>>web sites, bike shops.>
You can't stay in business if you don't sell product and service. Some> can't sell service, so they try to sell product.
Hmm. Unfortunate, but true.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of _`\(,_ | business. (_)/ (_) |
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message > newsNgde.59$T3.431@typhoon.sonic.net...>>That was my experience as well except that Cinelli made the sloping>>fork crown popular and that was a bad choice in my experience. This>>fork crown looked elegant but had two major faults. First, it>>connected the steertube to the fork blades by a heavy solid steel>>forging. Second and worse was that it used internal lugs to engage>>the fork blades. Being internal, these could not be given a feathered>>transition to the fork blades and thereby caused a stress concentration>>through this discontinuity in elasticity. I had two of these forks>>break at that junction and subsequently demanded external feathered>>lugs for my forks.
No Cinelli products on Raleighs.. Ever. That is a Canetti crown, made in Belgium IIRC.
Having built with both, the Canetti is thinner; much easier to heat evenly to better fill the joints. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Squid-in-Training Phil 3 May 2005 11:27:43 [ permanent link ]
<datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1115056667.495816.133780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> the saved metal goes to china for walmart lava lamp manufacture
David L. Johnson wrote:> On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:00:09 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:>
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious (although that it seems not to be >>proves my point), a "racing bike" is a bike used for racing. That is, >>ridden in competitive events where speed is of singular importance.>
So, like the Trek's that USPS/Discovery ride. Lots of club cyclists also> ride such bikes. So, they shouldn't? Why?
I never said they "shouldn't". I said I didn't know why they did. If you're not racing, adopting a racing position on the bike doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're not going to adopt a racing position, then setting a racing bike up for a more conventional position may present difficulties.
Well, the context for my remarks was (as in the thread title) the actual>>setup of the bike, specifically a very large drop from saddle to bars.>>Digressing into all those other areas would be interesting, but>>off-thread.>
Most road bikes do not have such a large drop.
No, but the "racing" bikes in the linked photos do. That was the context for my remarks.
The beef is that too many bikes are set up new with big drops from>>saddle to bars. The only justification for this is to get a very flat>>back. Many people have no need for such a position on the bike, or may>>be unable to ride like that comfortably. The complaints continue that>>it's harder or more expensive to raise the bars with threadless steerers>>set up that way.>
That is my beef as well, but it is a fault of whoever cuts the steerer,> not so much the framebuilder.
"Compact" frames and steep frame angles make it difficult to set up a non-racing position. You can take a frame that was designed for a large saddle to bar drop and raise the bars to level, but why? Why not start with a bikes/frame that is designed for that position?
one, hence my question. It's similar to the question why someone would>>spend thousands to shave a little weight when they aren't riding>>competitively in events involving climbing. Those bikes are also>>specifically racing bikes.>
So, it depends on how much it costs? A recreational cyclist would have a> legitimate rationale for not wanting to carry more weight than is> necessary up the hills. As to how much one should spend, that kind of> depends.
I'm not arguing philosophy here, just pragmatics. I can't define "legitimate" or "necessary" or say how much someone "should" spend, but I can say that shaving weight past the point of diminishing returns makes no functional sense for non-racers. I'm not claiming that non-racers shouldn't own racing bikes (I think I've covered my definition of what that means), just saying that I don't understand why they would buy a bike that's poorly matched to their style of riding.
From what I've seen among club riders, there's a lot of ignorance about equipment and fit, and most seem to have purchased based on LBS recommendations. Perhaps the conclusion I'm forced to reach is that if the bike you're being sold is very difficult to fit, you're being sold the wrong bike.
On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:35:41 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:
No, but the "racing" bikes in the linked photos do. That was the context > for my remarks.>
I thought you were more generally dissing the use of road bikes by non-racers. My misunderstanding.
"Compact" frames and steep frame angles make it difficult to set up a> non-racing position. You can take a frame that was designed for a large> saddle to bar drop and raise the bars to level, but why? Why not start> with a bikes/frame that is designed for that position?
I completely agree. I think the "compact" frame design is less than worthless for most people. It may work for very short riders who want their bars very high, buying a "bigger" frame than they would be advised to get and not have so much seat post showing.
I can say that shaving weight past the point of diminishing returns> makes no functional sense for non-racers.
Agreed, and I would say that point comes in the lower 20's (pounds).
I'm not claiming that> non-racers shouldn't own racing bikes (I think I've covered my> definition of what that means), just saying that I don't understand why> they would buy a bike that's poorly matched to their style of riding.
Yeah.
From what I've seen among club riders, there's a lot of ignorance about> equipment and fit, and most seem to have purchased based on LBS> recommendations.
Sadly, these LBS recommendations are the source of the ignorance.
ÂPerhaps the conclusion I'm forced to reach is that if> the bike you're being sold is very difficult to fit, you're being sold> the wrong bike.
Absolutely.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front _`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of (_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The internet has proven this not to be the case.
Quoting <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>:>Grease will not prevent an aluminum quill stem from "freezing" solid>in a steel steertube. All the ones I witnessed were installed with>plenty of grease that emulsified as the stem yoyoed back an forth at>its upper end pumping sweat and rain water into the grease that was>kneaded into a corrosive glop.
Last time we had this discussion, I said that had never happened to me, and I didn't believe it really happened that often anyway.
I discovered last week I was wrong. Sorry. -- David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field! Today is First Tuesday, May.
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil@phil.phil> wrote in message news:fZide.38867$5f.26146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> > narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only appropriate for> > "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that that's the position> > everyone should be riding in, otherwise they ought to buy a hybrid.>
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in
looking for a> fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the position, and end up with a> hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that they buy the race bike, and they don't> ride at all. The wider tires and inherently upright position of the hybrid> simply suit them better.
That's not an old fart problem -- that's a pretender problem. These pretenders are the same people who buy racing skiis, racing cars, racing skates, racing espresso machines, racing computers, racing HiFi, etc., etc. It is the assumption by the wealthy masses that they need this stuff and must own it. Getting people to buy only what they really need is virtually impossible. -- Jay Beattie.
Grease will not prevent an aluminum quill stem from "freezing">> solid in a steel steertube. All the ones I witnessed were>> installed with plenty of grease that emulsified as the stem yoyoed>> back an forth at its upper end pumping sweat and rain water into>> the grease that was kneaded into a corrosive glop.
Last time we had this1 discussion, I said that had never happened to> me, and I didn't believe it really happened that often anyway.
I discovered last week I was wrong. Sorry.
Thanks.
I don't expect everyone to make this discovery, only that it can and does occur, and for predictable reasons. This similar to those who say they never broke a crank nor had a crank face erode, and therefore it cannot happen. I have spent much time explaining how and why these things occur and much too often see that because it never happened to the respondent, it cannot happen.
As a review of that subject the bottom picture in the above site shows how a pedal, that was tightly installed, ate away at the crank face and that the modification shown stops that pedal motion and reduces the probability of this kind of failure.
I guess I'll have to photograph the stem remains I have from boring them out.
Squid-in-Training Phil 3 May 2005 21:17:53 [ permanent link ]
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message newsan.2005.05.03.01.54.19.40363@lehigh-nospam.edu...> On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:34:03 +0000, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:>
narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only appropriate for>>> "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that that's the position>>> everyone should be riding in, otherwise they ought to buy a hybrid.>>
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in looking for >> a>> fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the position, and end up with >> a>> hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that they buy the race bike, and they >> don't>> ride at all. The wider tires and inherently upright position of the >> hybrid>> simply suit them better.>
Horseshit. Speaking as an old fart. The problem is that what seems> comfortable at first is not comfortable in the long run. The old farts> (what, that means 2 years older than you???) need to understand that they> will adapt to a more aerodynamic position. It is also preferable since an> upright position puts too much pressure on your butt.>
I'm not advocating the 5-inches (12 cm) below the saddle, but a reasonable> road bike is far more comfortable in the long run than a hybrid, once you> get used to it.
Oh, definitely. I really meant to say "some of the old farts." One can tell right off the bat that some would be better on the road bike or better on the hybrid. The ones that say "I tried my friend's bike, and it was a bit uncomfortable" due to a mis-sizing or seatpost too low or high usually means they can handle it. The ones that say "How can a human being ever be leaned over so much for so long???" are very likely going to be more comfortable on the hybrid. Also, if there's an accompanying riding wife in the equation, it's automatically a hybrid. There are exceptions, however, and we always do trade-ups on new-ish bikes so that they're happy. -- Phil, Squid-in-Training
Squid-in-Training Phil 3 May 2005 21:23:06 [ permanent link ]
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message news:117fa4kiajkd2ea@corp.supernews.com...>
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil@phil.phil> wrote in message> news:fZide.38867$5f.26146@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> > narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only> appropriate for>> > "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that that's the> position>> > everyone should be riding in, otherwise they ought to buy a> hybrid.>>
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in> looking for a>> fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the position, and> end up with a>> hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that they buy the race bike,> and they don't>> ride at all. The wider tires and inherently upright position> of the hybrid>> simply suit them better.>
That's not an old fart problem -- that's a pretender problem.> These pretenders are the same people who buy racing skiis, racing> cars, racing skates, racing espresso machines, racing computers,
Racing computers, haha!
racing HiFi, etc., etc. It is the assumption by the wealthy> masses that they need this stuff and must own it. Getting people> to buy only what they really need is virtually impossible. -- Jay> Beattie.
Good point; I hadn't thought about it that way. It's probably "doctors orders" that force older, well-to-do folk with health problems to look at low-impact exercise, namely bike riding and swimming. Then they overestimate themselves or, more specifically, their will, with a shiny new D-A equipped bike. -- Phil, Squid-in-Training
narrow way. Worse, sales staff may believe they're only>>> appropriate for "racers" or, to really make things bad, claim that>>> that's the position everyone should be riding in, otherwise they>>> ought to buy a hybrid.
Oftentimes, though, that's the truth. The old farts come in>> looking for a fast bike, try the fast bike, can't handle the>> position, and end up with a hybrid. Worse yet, they insist that>> they buy the race bike, and they don't ride at all. The wider>> tires and inherently upright position of the hybrid simply suit>> them better.
That's not an old fart problem -- that's a pretender problem. These> pretenders are the same people who buy racing skis, racing cars,> racing skates, racing espresso machines, racing computers, racing> HiFi, etc., etc. It is the assumption by the wealthy masses that> they need this stuff and must own it. Getting people to buy only> what they really need is virtually impossible.
Nya nya, my SUV is jacked up higher than yours, has bigger knobbier rumbling tires, its boom box has deeper bass, and the windows are blacker than yours! You gotta see my low profile wheels with windmill hub caps and listen to my BIG chrome exhaust rumble-pipes.
My other car is a Porsche that I always run around town at 6000RPM+.
Although these images are so striking to me, I cannot estimate what portion of the populace suffers under the peacock syndrome, but I find it a depressing situation. It isn't only in bicycle gear.
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:qjOde.288$T3.1720@typhoon.sonic.net...> David Damerell writes:>
Grease will not prevent an aluminum quill stem from
"freezing"> >> solid in a steel steertube. All the ones I witnessed were> >> installed with plenty of grease that emulsified as the stem yoyoed> >> back an forth at its upper end pumping sweat and rain water into> >> the grease that was kneaded into a corrosive glop.>
Last time we had this1 discussion, I said that had never
happened to> > me, and I didn't believe it really happened that often anyway.>
I discovered last week I was wrong. Sorry.>
Thanks.>
I don't expect everyone to make this discovery, only that it
can and> does occur, and for predictable reasons. This similar to those
say they never broke a crank nor had a crank face erode, and
therefore> it cannot happen. I have spent much time explaining how and why these> things occur and much too often see that because it never happened to> the respondent, it cannot happen.>
As a review of that subject the bottom picture in the above
site shows> how a pedal, that was tightly installed, ate away at the crank face> and that the modification shown stops that pedal motion and reduces> the probability of this kind of failure.>
I guess I'll have to photograph the stem remains I have from
boring> them out.
The more you ride, the more things break, get stuck, strip and/or fail. You will always be Cassandra to those who have ridden less than a zillion miles on the same equipment. -- Jay Beattie.
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is>> that by and large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical>> direction). This results in a riding position that's incredibly>> hunched over, with fewer useful riding positions than the old>> Cinelli bars and stems that I remember. When I left cycling, the>> rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at or slightly>> below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than>> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6')>> riders like me. Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest>> sources of traditional stems?
The problem as I see it is that bike manufacturers have too> gleefully adopted the threadless steerer without providing for the> same range of vertical adjustment that they (or at least their> customers) considered essential in a quill stem. With the typical> old quill stem, vertical rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4> inches were common, at least in bikes with larger frames; with the> new bikes, you're extraordinarily fortunate if they've allowed for> two inches, and often there's much less...or none.
I haven't seen any Cinelli or similar stem that had such a range nor do I know any people with common sized frames 21" to 24" in which the steertube would accept shoving a stem into it that deeply because the steertubes are "butted" having a smaller ID as it approached the fork crown. The stems with which I am familiar, those that I and most riders I know used had an adjustment range of at most one inch.
If they had shortened the range of the seat height adjustment> commensurately, there would be some excuse for the omission, but> they still routinely ship bikes that can't be set up with the bars> at a height that's even close to being within two inches of the seat> surface when the saddle is near the vertical limit of its> adjustment. (To be fair, this was often true with quill-stem bikes> as well, but was *much* easier to overcome there, as long quill> stems were never hard to find. Steep-rise threadless road stems, on> the other hand, are a market opportunity that appears underserved.)
I think you mean long vertically stems were available but they could not be adjusted vertically any significant part of that length. That is possible today with various hinged and angled stems, quite aside from spacer shifting. I believe the main point is that once you have arrived on a bar position, the stem for the threadless steertube is a far better device than the quill stem.
What it will take to fix this is bike buyers griping *directly to> the manufacturers* about the problem. At present, there aren't> enough of them, it appears.
That is why dealers need to listen to the customers, observe their needs and preferences and attend InterBike to pass this information on to their manufacturers. Of course there is also the channel of distributors who need to carry such information back to their suppliers.
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of> craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick> on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old> Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been> the better for it.>
That ain't your Dad's old Cinelli by any stretch of the imagination. Cinellis were known for relatively-long wheelbases. 406mm chainstays???!!! Ouch, let's just put ourselves right over the rear wheel and feel every bump in the road.
It would be nice to see some closeups; are they still drilling three holes in the lugs? The chrome isn't quite as I remember it; I recall Cinelli having two different paint jobs, one in which only lugs & dropouts were chrome-plated (which is what I have) and the other as pictured, only the chrome extended all the way up the seatstay *if* I recall correctly.
And if they're going to do a retro steel approach, why not use the old classic logo?
I demur. They were indeed well-crafted. The finishing was awful, with>>visible file marks, poor chrome and paint. But nice lugs, well-designed,>>and well-built. I was going to make a comment about the finish, but>>decided to let that lie, until you brought it up.>
Yeah, we're on the same page. Well worth overlooking the finishing quirks.>
Ron
My 1973 Cinelli SuperCorsa is absolutely an exquisite piece of art. In every way a magnificent combination of art & function. And there's no point looking for a flaw or file marks anywhere, because there aren't any. Period. Except...
Except for the forward point of the bottom bracket, underneath the downtube. For whatever reason, it appears that somebody simply forgot to clean up that one joint. Brazing material oozing out the sides, a very unfinished look. Just in that one, specific place. Weird.
StaceyJ wrote:> That comparison fails to note that Jobst is riding a 'traditional'> (level, or perhaps even downward sloping TT as it approaches the HT)> frame with a -17 degree stem, whilst the Cervelo is a compact with what> appears to be a 0 degree stem (resulting in a lot of exposed seatpost).> Barring a side-on shot of both bikes (rather than the oblique angles> present in the pictures you linked), or something including a level and> a measured plumb bob, it is extremely difficult to make an accurate> comparison of the two rigs.
Nobody's trying to make measurements off these pictures, but it's pretty obvious that they have very different amounts of drop from saddle to handlebar.
Werehatrack wrote:> With the typical old quill stem, vertical> rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4 inches were common, at least> in bikes with larger frames;
I don't think I've *ever* seen a bike with such a large range of adjustment. 1-2" is the norm for quill stems in my experience.
StaceyJ wrote:> "I think the "compact" frame design is less than worthless for most> people.">
I think it is less useless than you imagine. I'm 5'7", have a 29.75"> inseam, and am most comfortable on a bike with a 54.5 cm TT/110 mm> stem. Fitting traditional bikes that stretch me out as much as I like> always meant that stoplights were a bit, ahem, cozy for me.
More pertinent to the original topic, compact frames by nature of the> higher front end (WRT the rest of the TT) allow the bike to have a> higher bar without high rise stems, stacks of spacers, or other> aesthetically displeasing devices.
You have a long torso. Compact frames work for you because they allow you to size the frame to your torso (toptube) and still clear your crotch. Most people with your torso length would use the same size frame but with the seatpost raised much higher. That leads to the bars being too low if you want them within 2" of the saddle.
Your perspective is skewed by your proportions. Compact frames aren't made by raising the headtubes, they're made by lowering the toptube, either at both ends, or sloping towards the back. A more average proportioned individual can't take advantage of this to get high bars by buying a larger frame because they will be too stretched out.
30 years ago fashion dictated that no more than a couple of inches of seatpost was exposed. As a result, frames ran much larger, today the opposite is true. That's good news for you, bad news for me (6'10").
My 1973 Cinelli SuperCorsa is absolutely an exquisite piece of> art. In every way a magnificent combination of art & function. And> there's no point looking for a flaw or file marks anywhere, because> there aren't any. Period. Except...
Oops! I was thinking of 1950-1960's Cinellis whn Cino was still at the helm. I never had the three-hole lugs, someting that came around in the drillium days.
Except for the forward point of the bottom bracket, underneath the> downtube. For whatever reason, it appears that somebody simply> forgot to clean up that one joint. Brazing material oozing out the> sides, a very unfinished look. Just in that one, specific> place. Weird.
Things were not all well in those later years. Cino retired to Chiancano (Toscana) and lived to the age of 100. Tough guy.
"dvt" <dvt+usenet@psu.edu> wrote in message news:d5adru$t9q$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...> Werehatrack wrote:> > With the typical old quill stem, vertical> > rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4 inches were common, at least> > in bikes with larger frames;>
I don't think I've *ever* seen a bike with such a large range of> adjustment. 1-2" is the norm for quill stems in my experience.
My road bicycles are more than ten years old, but they have about 4 inches of adjustment in the quill stem. I'll check my wife's more recent vintage hybrid sometime.
On Wed, 04 May 2005 00:14:59 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Werehatrack wrote:>> What it will take to fix this is bike buyers griping *directly to>> the manufacturers* about the problem. At present, there aren't>> enough of them, it appears.>
That is why dealers need to listen to the customers, observe their>needs and preferences and attend InterBike to pass this information on>to their manufacturers. Of course there is also the channel of>distributors who need to carry such information back to their>suppliers.
I quite agree; ISO900x feedback channels still have not reached the point of providing this type of information flow. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:7uUde.352$T3.1916@typhoon.sonic.net...> Coat hanger writes:>
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is> >> that by and large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical> >> direction). This results in a riding position that's incredibly> >> hunched over, with fewer useful riding positions than the old> >> Cinelli bars and stems that I remember. When I left cycling, the> >> rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at or slightly> >> below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than> >> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6')> >> riders like me. Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest> >> sources of traditional stems?>
The problem as I see it is that bike manufacturers have too> > gleefully adopted the threadless steerer without providing for the> > same range of vertical adjustment that they (or at least their> > customers) considered essential in a quill stem. With the typical> > old quill stem, vertical rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4> > inches were common, at least in bikes with larger frames; with the> > new bikes, you're extraordinarily fortunate if they've allowed for> > two inches, and often there's much less...or none.>
I haven't seen any Cinelli or similar stem that had such a range nor> do I know any people with common sized frames 21" to 24" in which the> steertube would accept shoving a stem into it that deeply because the> steertubes are "butted" having a smaller ID as it approached the fork> crown. The stems with which I am familiar, those that I and most> riders I know used had an adjustment range of at most one inch.>
If they had shortened the range of the seat height adjustment> > commensurately, there would be some excuse for the omission, but> > they still routinely ship bikes that can't be set up with the bars> > at a height that's even close to being within two inches of the seat> > surface when the saddle is near the vertical limit of its> > adjustment. (To be fair, this was often true with quill-stem bikes> > as well, but was *much* easier to overcome there, as long quill> > stems were never hard to find. Steep-rise threadless road stems, on> > the other hand, are a market opportunity that appears underserved.)>
I think you mean long vertically stems were available but they could> not be adjusted vertically any significant part of that length. That> is possible today with various hinged and angled stems, quite aside> from spacer shifting. I believe the main point is that once you have> arrived on a bar position, the stem for the threadless steertube is a> far better device than the quill stem.>
What it will take to fix this is bike buyers griping *directly to> > the manufacturers* about the problem. At present, there aren't> > enough of them, it appears.>
That is why dealers need to listen to the customers, observe their> needs and preferences and attend InterBike to pass this information on> to their manufacturers. Of course there is also the channel of> distributors who need to carry such information back to their> suppliers.
And attend the Taipei International Cycle Show, if you really want to get to the manufacturers. I've been to both Interbike and TICS, and it's a totally different atmosphere. At Interbike, the dealers and the press get to interact with the major U.S. companies distributing the bicycles that are made in China and Taiwan. At TICS you got to actually talk to the people that are doing the manufacturing. It's a two way street in terms of speccing the bikes, with trade-offs of price versus quality and functionality.
"Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
Steep-rise threadless road stems, on the> other hand, are a market opportunity that appears underserved.)
SpeedLifter is an awesome, but expensive solution, and is not available in the U.S.
What it will take to fix this is bike buyers griping *directly to the> manufacturers* about the problem. At present, there aren't enough of> them, it appears.
This is very difficult. Most bike buyers don't go to shows like Interbike or TICS, where they can talk to the manufacturers. E-mails and letters have little effect. And even at the shows, the manufacturers are talking to dealers, not to end users. Getting into Interbike isn't that easy even if the buyer wanted to go.
On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:06:21 -0400, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu> wrote:
Werehatrack wrote:>> With the typical old quill stem, vertical>> rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4 inches were common, at least>> in bikes with larger frames;>
I don't think I've *ever* seen a bike with such a large range of >adjustment. 1-2" is the norm for quill stems in my experience.
You've been dealing with better bikes than I've had; the cheaper bikes, interestingly enough, typically had the greater range of adjustment...at the cost of being heavier in the process. I suspect that the rationale was that those who bought a high-end bike could afford the tweaks to make it fit, while those buying a low-end unit needed it to be one-size-sorta-fits-all right from the box. Now, however, the cheap bikes have the same restricted range as the expensive ones had, or worse. To add insult to injury, however, many OEM threadless setups provide no adjustment of height at all, and some bike shops don't have an adequate selection of stems to put the bars where the rider wants them. Yes, they can order stems, but as for having some on the shelf that they can use to determine what the customer really needs, that's not as widely supported as it should be[1]. Too often, it's "You tell us what dimensions you want, and we'll get it for you."
[1] In the bike shops' defense, I will note that the number of different stems the shop might have to keep around in order to have a reasonably comprehensive selection could very well require a sizable investment is what amounts to slow-moving, fashion-sensitive stock that could become instantly obsolete with the appearance of the Next New Trend. They did not create the problem that needs to be addressed, and they aren't being provided with an adequate set of useful solutions to it; I can't really blame them for being less than enthusiastic about trying to address it in the most customer-friendly manner. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Steven M. Scharf wrote:> "dvt" <dvt+usenet@psu.edu> wrote in message> news:d5adru$t9q$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...>
Werehatrack wrote:>>
With the typical old quill stem, vertical>>>rise adjustments in the range of 3 to 4 inches were common, at least>>>in bikes with larger frames;>>
I don't think I've *ever* seen a bike with such a large range of>>adjustment. 1-2" is the norm for quill stems in my experience.>
My road bicycles are more than ten years old, but they have about 4 inches> of adjustment in the quill stem. I'll check my wife's more recent vintage> hybrid sometime.
I have a bunch of old bikes (20-30 years old). I always set the quills to max height, they're all in the 1.5-2" above the locknut range
In article <1115172596.494200.30810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "StaceyJ" <s_y_jenkins@hotmail.com> wrote:
"I think the "compact" frame design is less than worthless for most> people."
What is a compact frame? I have heard that frames with sloping top tubes are compact frames. However, that has no bearing on handlebar height relative to the saddle. Maybe you mean small or undersized frames. It has long been a racer's rule that you ride on the smallest frame you can to save weight.
-- Mike DeMicco <blaster186REMOVE_THIS@comcast.net>
"Vetera semper in laude, presentia in fastidio." - Tacitus
On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:22:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of>> craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick>> on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old>> Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been>> the better for it.>>
That ain't your Dad's old Cinelli by any stretch of the imagination. >Cinellis were known for relatively-long wheelbases. 406mm chainstays???!!! >Ouch, let's just put ourselves right over the rear wheel and feel every bump >in the road.
This isn't a reproduction of the earliest Supercorsa, but rather a contemporary design (130 mm. rear spacing with vertical dropouts, investment cast lugs and bottom bracket) for riders who prefer the ride characteristics and aesthetic values of classically proportioned steel frames. As for predictions of discomfort, chainstay lengths of this most recent generation of the Supercorsa frame are within three to five millimeters (comparing size with like size) of those on, for instance, current "performance" models from Waterloo.
------------------------------- John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Since 1983 Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996. http://www.businesscycles.com
This isn't a reproduction of the earliest Supercorsa, but rather a> contemporary design (130 mm. rear spacing with vertical dropouts,> investment cast lugs and bottom bracket) for riders who prefer the> ride characteristics and aesthetic values of classically proportioned> steel frames. As for predictions of discomfort, chainstay lengths of> this most recent generation of the Supercorsa frame are within three> to five millimeters (comparing size with like size) of those on, for> instance, current "performance" models from Waterloo.>
Very true, and from my rather-extensive experience riding road bikes over the years, 3-5 millimeters difference in chainstay length is *not* insignificant.
I wasn't expecting a 120mm tail section, but I was kinda hoping for a more "classic" road bike, from the days when it was still something of a family operation. Up through the 70s, Cinelli & Masi pretty much defined what a high-end Italian frame was. Colnago was just a notch below. It wasn't long after that that the Cinelli name was pretty much just a name, with various factories building "Cinelli" bikes for various bike brands, including Centurion (still have one of those lying around someplace).
So I guess I was looking for retro, but what they're giving us is simply steel. There's more to a great bike than just the materials it's made of.
"John Dacey" <jdacey@businesscycles.com> wrote in message news:ha0i715bioos5od5g1drpa13eaq078m42c@4ax.com...> "Vetera semper in laude, presentia in fastidio." - Tacitus>
On Wed, 04 May 2005 05:22:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"> <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of>>> craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to >>> stick>>> on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old>>> Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been>>> the better for it.>>>
That ain't your Dad's old Cinelli by any stretch of the imagination.>>Cinellis were known for relatively-long wheelbases. 406mm chainstays???!!!>>Ouch, let's just put ourselves right over the rear wheel and feel every >>bump>>in the road.>
This isn't a reproduction of the earliest Supercorsa, but rather a> contemporary design (130 mm. rear spacing with vertical dropouts,> investment cast lugs and bottom bracket) for riders who prefer the> ride characteristics and aesthetic values of classically proportioned> steel frames. As for predictions of discomfort, chainstay lengths of> this most recent generation of the Supercorsa frame are within three> to five millimeters (comparing size with like size) of those on, for> instance, current "performance" models from Waterloo.>
-------------------------------> John Dacey> Business Cycles, Miami, Florida> Since 1983> Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.> http://www.businesscycles.com
Squid-in-Training Phil 5 May 2005 10:49:37 [ permanent link ]
"StaceyJ" <s_y_jenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115172596.494200.30810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> "I think the "compact" frame design is less than worthless for most> people.">
I think it is less useless than you imagine. I'm 5'7", have a 29.75"> inseam, and am most comfortable on a bike with a 54.5 cm TT/110 mm> stem. Fitting traditional bikes that stretch me out as much as I like> always meant that stoplights were a bit, ahem, cozy for me. Going with> a smaller frame/longer stem means toe overlap problems. Compact frames> (I ride an older Schwinn Fastback now) allow me to avoid both of these> problems - I have a TT that fits, and no toe overlap.
Toe overlap has to do with the headtube angle, not the frame type.
One additional> benefit (tho some may not agree) is that the longer seatpost results in> a bit more shock absorbtion (albeit at the expense of a bit of fore/aft> sway from time to time - something that I'm used to from my Kona MTB).
Did a salesman tell you that? -- Phil, Squid-in-Training
