Achieving Stem Height: Then and Now [Archive]

Marco

11-25-2006, 08:08 PM

atmo

11-25-2006, 08:30 PM

spacers, angled stems, and sloped top tubes
are the 21st century versions of what quills
were. atmo, threadless headsets are better
on every single count, and the stems that are
part of the act are great too. the weak link is
poorly designed bicycles that precipitate an
unsightly amount of 1) spacers, 2) angled stems,
and/or 3) degree of slope to assimilate how it
all might've looked if the quill was still part of
the equation atmo.

as norma said -
"i am big. it's the pictures that have gotten small."

so - next time you look at a 21st century frame and fit,
think about how that combo may have been addressed
as recently as 5-10 years ago. it's not impossible to
do it elequently!

catulle

11-25-2006, 08:51 PM

elequently...? Is that elegant eloquence or something neither elegant nor eloquent at all, atmo...?

atmo

11-25-2006, 09:01 PM

as pasted from the o.p. -
Quilled stems seem to be a much more elequent way to achieve height...

Bradford

11-25-2006, 09:49 PM

I had plenty of problems with the headsets on the old quill stems when I had them. I had some loosen in the middle of rides and I even had one "index" during a tour. Since I've moved to King threadless, I've have no problems. Zero, zip, nada, set it and forget it.

I remember talking to someone at Wheelworks when they first came out and he explained to me that I could actually do any adjustments necessary with an allen wrench instead of a couple of huge headset wrenches. This, to me, seemed like a good enough reason drop quills. Perhaps that is a touring mentality, but it still makes sense to simplify the mechanics when possible.

Who gives an Eff what they look like if they work better?

Sometimes I forget, are we cyclists or fashion models? :confused:

atmo

11-25-2006, 10:04 PM

Sometimes I forget, are we cyclists or fashion models? :confused:
if jil sander is involved, i would need to ponder this atmo.

obtuse

11-25-2006, 10:24 PM

After a Thanksgiving morning ride with PBWrench and his Bruce Gordon (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=23473) it made me ask: "Why the move from quilled to non-quilled stems?" I know that there are probably mechanical, functional and weight reasons to explain it but........

It seems like many bike setups today are somehow fighting to achieve a proper height for the bars and end up with severly rising stems to achieve it. Quilled stems seem to be a much more elequent way to achieve height and keep the bike looking "proper". Is there an answer that I am missing? Is it just a matter of one man's beauty is another mans disaster?

these idiots wouldn't be riding properly balanced bikes even if threaded headsets were still en vogue. the fact is that integrated shift brake levers have migrated further up the handlebar and have assumed the primary role in terms of hand position. beyond that handlebars have become shallower. riser stems and huge headtubes are this season's upside down drop bar and safety brake lever.....the ergonomics of a racing position hasn't changed in thirty years.

obtuse

labratmatt

11-25-2006, 11:02 PM

Quill stems certainly looked better and had more in the way of adjustability, but non-quill stems/threadless headset systems are lighter and stiffer. From this it seems pretty easy to see what qualities win out over time.

alancw3

11-26-2006, 02:20 AM

another factor, with the advent of carbon steerer tubes i don't think a quill stem could be used. the mechanical attachment, i.e. internal expansion, would probably explode the carbon steerer. i like the threadless better, but that being said, i had many bikes over the years that had a combination of campy nuevo record headsets and cinelli 1a stems that were virtually trouble free and bulletproof.

dbrk

11-26-2006, 04:14 AM

The real mechanical advantages of threadless can't withstand the majority of aesthetic disadvantages, which do have practical consequences imhoatmoclko. Those who revert to it's only the ride, the ride, that a bike is all and ultimately function are not folks I would want designing my bike.

Modern bikes are simply "fit" smaller, for reasons that obtuse has already stated clearly. Positioning on road bikes has changed and as soon as you buy into one feature of it, like the size and positioning of the levers, the rest follows gestalt-atmo. And whether they were treadless or threaded steerers we'd be seeing a different sense of proper today than we saw years ago. It's no secret that I prefer the older style of fit, the old-fashioned aesthetic.

A good example of the difference would be the recent photos of my Toei, designed by Hirosh Iimura of Jitensha Studio. (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=22662&highlight=Toei) No part was chosen for sentimental or nostalgic reasons; there was no desire to be "retro." Instead, a certain practical, mechanical set of choices were set in motion and a set of particular aesthetic goals. The results speak for themselves. Some can find nothing more to say about this bike than that it's retro or old school.

I like modern bikes fine and I'm content with their mechanics and aesthetics but few of them strike me as well-fit for their riders---this has little to do with their especially poor looks, though a bike that looks goofy always looks goofy, no matter how it rides---and fewer still meet any aesthetic criteria that I would prefer. YMMV.

dbrk

stevep

11-26-2006, 06:06 AM

these idiots wouldn't be riding properly balanced bikes even if threaded headsets were still en vogue. the fact is that integrated shift brake levers have migrated further up the handlebar and have assumed the primary role in terms of hand position. beyond that handlebars have become shallower. riser stems and huge headtubes are this season's upside down drop bar and safety brake lever.....the ergonomics of a racing position hasn't changed in thirty years.

obtuse

but obtuce,
its the demographics that have changed...not the ergonomics. its now a lot of 40+, 50+, 60+ riders ( on this forum eg ) who have the space on the credit card for premium products like expensive racing bikes.
if you could not put the bars where they need to be how could you sell a racing bike to a 50 yr old?
the bars have to be where they have to be....
overall alteration of position due to shift lever brake levers needs to be another thread...and a key thread atmo.

dbrk

11-26-2006, 06:40 AM

snip...
if you could not put the bars where they need to be how could you sell a racing bike to a 50 yr old?...snip...

Good observation. So, let's start with a big world in which everyone who likes to gets to go for their version of a long ride.

There are a lot of folks who want to ride bikes who have the need for a less saddle/bar drop. There are all sorts of ways to solve that, not all of which are inelegant, though nearly all of them would mean forsaking the look of a contemporary race bike. Not much looks worse to me than a contemporary racer-style bike set up like another sort of bike it's not.

The "problem" is that a significant proportion of modern race bike designs, suited for the fit and fast crowd, are poorly suited to meet any other needs. Another "problem" is that many less fit, injured, or older riders actually want race-like bikes---for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which are the powers of marketing and self-imagination. The outcome are often "professionally fit" road bikes designed from inside the world of competition-style racers, and they look awful even if they ride fine (it's remarkable how many compromises can be made before a bike rides really poorly!) Too few folks want a bike that will cause others to label them old school, retro, phred, etc.---and I don't mean bikes have to have tons of stem quill or spacers or slope---but more level bar/saddle drop. Most nearly-and-more-50 somethings are unwilling to size up and make the necessary design changes for the bike to ride in a balanced and competent way because they wish they could ride a modern race bike. Old school "looks slow" or something. So instead we see what we see---to each their own.

dbrk

trophyoftexas

11-26-2006, 07:12 AM

[QUOTE=stevep]but obtuce,
its the demographics that have changed...not the ergonomics. its now a lot of 40+, 50+, 60+ riders ( on this forum eg )
if you could not put the bars where they need to be how could you sell a racing bike to a 50 yr old?
the bars have to be where they have to be....
QUOTE]

This observation is, I think, RIGHT ON! I LOVE quill stems, racing positions, lower brake positions, all of the design characteristics that make a statement in regards to beauty. But the fact is, at 58 I just don't have the flexibility that I had 20 years ago and still love to ride. The more I ride the more able to "get low" I have become but I'll never be where I was two decades ago. What I have done is build a "two sided stable." I have a few really nice bikes of classic style and feel that I ride every now and then. Usually only 10-15 miles at a ride, not much more than a little stretch of the legs. I can handle the ergonomics of the position for about that long and then I find myself looking for another way to hold the bars, another position for my butt,etc. I enjoy showing the bikes off to my friends and allowing them to snatch a ride or two and get the feel. This is why, from time to time, forum members have seen me buy 54cm bikes up to 58 cm bikes....I'm not going to be totally "size anal" enough to prevent me from taking a short spin on a classic frame, besides, I've always got smaller sons, daughters, and friends that can ride them, too....which is sometimes more fun for me than riding them myself. Then I have the other side of the stable, my Ottrott and now my Legend Ti. If I'm out to go the distance of a metric or English century I grab my Serotta with it's slightly higher riding position and go! I go fast enough to keep up, I'm a little more upright for sure but a whole lot more comfortable. I DON'T like the LOOKS of the position but, realistically, at my age and state of fitness it is the one that makes the most sense and the one that allows me to continue to ride in comfort. I don't laugh at a little spacer on someone else's bike anymore, I just say "damn, I didn't know he was THAT old" and then go over and strike up a conversation because I figure that he/she's about my age and we'll probably have other things in common.
A bike is a "fun thing" and if you can't ride it in comfort, well, it ain't much fun! The important thing is to ride, ride, ride until you are too old to swing a leg over the saddle and if your position has to change a little from decade to decade, so be it.

I still like the looks of a quill stem way, way more than I do the threadless stems, just like I still like the looks of non-areo brake hoods and downtube shifters....but none of these, at least to me, are quite as comfortable to use/ride for longer distances than are their more modern counterparts.

Fat Robert

11-26-2006, 07:36 AM

victoryfactory

11-26-2006, 08:17 AM

The real problem people have with "threadless" is that they can't easily adjust
up and down after delivery of the bike. This adjustment, along with seat
height and seat fore/aft are tweeks that traditionally have been available
to the rider to explore during the first few weeks/ months of ownership.
By taking away the stem height adustment and forcing the customer and sales person/fitter
to make a final decision at setup time, a basic traditional
flexibility has been removed from the process.

Not every rider or sales person has the skill, experience or knowledge to
nail that setting before the customer even rides the bike. Many old school
riders varied the stem height for early season/late season or racing/training or
based on current health/comfort issues. That has been taken away by threadless technology.
Now those riders are locked in. They have to make a decision and stay with it.
It's like being in a straight jacket.

I think that lack of flexibility is what makes people whine about how quill stems were better, when, as stated above by atmo,
threadless is clearly superior mechanically.

The solution? I bet if someone designs an adjustable threadless stem that
looks good and can go up and down in about a 2" range, a lot of problems
will be solved.
Look has been trying to do this, but most "real" riders wouldn't go that way
due to the "uncool factor.:

VF

catulle

11-26-2006, 08:29 AM

sokyroadie

11-26-2006, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE=trophyoftexas] But the fact is, at 58 I just don't have the flexibility that I had 20 years ago and still love to ride. The more I ride the more able to "get low" I have become but I'll never be where I was two decades ago. What I have done is build a "two sided stable." QUOTE]

Trophy - I agree 100% with this philosophy, I recently bought a Serotta Fierte 54S (for a song) knowing that it was a larger frame than I normally ride. The tt length was perfect, so I figured I could play with - 17 deg. stems to get the handlebars lower, but after one ride with a -6 deg stem with the bars a 1.5" higher than my other bikes WOW - the comfort was amazing. I too am in my 50's and as much as I hate to admit it, time does change things. :)

Jeff

victoryfactory

11-26-2006, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE=catulle]A simple solution would be for off-the-rack brands to deliver their frames with the steerer tube as long as practicable, and provide the customer with a free tube cutter. This way the rider can adjust the height of the stem at leisure. QUOTE]

OK, but once the decision is made, there's no going back.
What if the rider wants to experiment or change his mind?
A small amt of adjustment can be made with stem angle,
I supose one could keep a range of stems in stock, say
-10 deg - plus 10 deg, but that is expensive and requires
wrenching.

VF

dbrk

11-26-2006, 08:34 AM

snip...I think that lack of flexibility is what makes people whine about how quill stems were better, when, as stated above by atmo, threadless is clearly superior mechanically.
The solution? I bet if someone designs an adjustable threadless stem that
looks good and can go up and down in about a 2" range, a lot of problems
will be solved.
Look has been trying to do this, but most "real" riders wouldn't go that way
due to the "uncool factor.:
VF

The clear mechanical superiority of threadless is overrated, imhoatmo. Does it really matter to me that a headset can last nearly-forever? Put in a threaded CK and it will also last as long. It's not lack of flexibility that causes me to whine about quill stem superiority, it might rather be that they are superior because they create more options rather than deny them. I can routinely adjust a stem 2-3cm without an aesthetic compromise. I need a stiffer stem like I need...nahh, works just fine. Modern bikes call for the threadless aesthetic and that's fine 'cause it's dumb to be opposed to modernity (as if the past were better?), but as far as options and looks go on nearly any bike but the most modern OS etc., no contest, quills win.

The problem with the Look stem is that it's worse than uncool---I'm happy being uncool---it's that it's butt ugly. But what do I know? Soon this conversation will turn to "if it works, it's right" and we will once again reduce bicycles to function.

dbrk

victoryfactory

11-26-2006, 08:43 AM

DBRK;

I must admit that when I wrote that comment, I knew you would
see it differently.
So my question is:
Should form follow function?
or
Should function be limited by our desire to achieve form?

VF

too heavy, I'm going for a ride, I hope everybody has had great weather these last
3 days for late season riding, here in NY it's been super.

obtuse

11-26-2006, 08:59 AM

A simple solution would be for off-the-rack brands to deliver their frames with the steerer tube as long as practicable, and provide the customer with a free tube cutter. This way the rider can adjust the height of the stem at leisure. Regarding the tube cutter, I just remembered the days when bicycles were delivered with a small set of tools and a tool pouch for the back of the saddle.

they all do. ever out of the box road bike comes with the fork cut to its maximum height. according to the folks who make forks; you can't have more than 45mm of spacers on an 1 1/8th fork and this is what ever road bike in the world comes with.

including hacksaws in the price of a bicycle; while an alternative....doesn't really address the problem at hand.

obtuse

obtuse

11-26-2006, 09:02 AM

a bike shouldn't look like it can go faster backwards than forwards. dbrk's toeis look right...."custom" race bikes with giant headtubes; super short stems and radically sloping toptubes and steep seat angles look so wrong.

obtuse

catulle

11-26-2006, 09:19 AM

they all do. ever out of the box road bike comes with the fork cut to its maximum height. according to the folks who make forks; you can't have more than 45mm of spacers on an 1 1/8th fork and this is what ever road bike in the world comes with.

including hacksaws in the price of a bicycle; while an alternative....doesn't really address the problem at hand.

obtuse

Oh well, I guess the idea occurred to me because my C-40 was delivered with a very short steerer tube (only one slim spacer) and I've never been able to fit just right on that bicycle as a result. My overall experience with that dealer from NY was a very poor one anyways.

obtuse

11-26-2006, 09:20 AM

Oh well, I guess the idea occurred to me because my C-40 was delivered with a very short steerer tube (only one slim spacer) and I've never been able to fit just right on that bicycle as a result. My overall experience with that dealer from NY was a very poor one anyways.

i can check and see if i still have that one inch star fork in my pile of garbage and i'll send it to you if you'd like...it's unpainted and not doing me any good.

obtuse

catulle

11-26-2006, 09:24 AM

i can check and see if i still have that one inch star fork in my pile of garbage and i'll send it to you if you'd like...it's unpainted and not doing me any good.

obtuse

:hello: :banana: :beer:

Ray

11-26-2006, 09:46 AM

DBRK;

I must admit that when I wrote that comment, I knew you would
see it differently.
So my question is:
Should form follow function?
or
Should function be limited by our desire to achieve form?

As always, personal preference. Douglas would say there's no reason to compromise form to achieve function - excellence is possible on both ends of the equation. I come from the same set of aesthetic preferences as the good Doc. But I don't care about those aesthetics nearly as much as he does and I'm also more accepting of a more modern aesthetic. Which makes me, perhaps, easier to please, despite similar biases going in.

For years, my favorite riding bike was a Rivendell that looked as good as it rode. Tried zillions of other bikes but none rode as well, so there were no compromises between ride and aesthetics. Then I got a custom ti with compact geo, a headtube extension and I still cut the steerer too low (nobody's fault but mine, btw) and ended up having to flip the stem to get the position nailed. By my old standards, the bike is a bit of an aesthetic nightmare. But it rides so friggin' well that I don't really care. And I've even gotten used to and grown to like the way it looks. Yeah, the stem is flipped upwards, but the angle pretty closely mimics the compact geo top tube angle and I've grown to like that - sort of like I always liked the angle of a quill stem to mimic the angle of the top tube on a traditional geometry bike. This may ALL be rationalization, but it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, I invite you not to look at my bike.

I know I could get this same functional bike built with a more 'traditional' aesthetic and both form and function would be satisfied. But I already have this one and don't have that one. The ideal, of course, is to nail both form and function and I know its possible. But if you must choose one, I'll take function every friggin' time and let form come in where it will. As much as I like a pretty bike, I spend a LOT more time riding them than looking at them, so the ride beats the picture every time.

-Ray

Grant McLean

11-26-2006, 10:45 AM

There are ways to make the ahead stem work, it just takes a few tricks.
I'm a shrimp, so my bikes don't have a ton of saddle to bar drop.

Anyway, tricks for getting ahead:

1)Don't get too small a frame. Especially level top tube bikes. If you have a
mile of seatpost showing, it's going to be tough to have the bars without
a ton of spacers. Just what they're afraid of on the next size up?
2) stems are usually '80, this gets you about 7mm to 12mm of height,
depending on the length of the stem over a -17.
3) Integrated Headsets gain you back some stack, especially the campy, and
others with the 'cone' shaped top cap. It looks more like part of the frame,
and not really a spacer. There are lots of carbon bikes doing a nice job of
the integrated headset.

I hestiate to use the 'g-word' but it really is about pulling it all together as
a whole. My Sachs and DeRosa have identical contact points, but they're
very different designs, and I think they both work.

g

Len J

11-26-2006, 10:45 AM

I find Threadless stems vry flexible......as long as you are willing to change out stems......which takes about 5 minutes....and bear the look of a sloping stem.

I always hated changing out a threaded stem.......dismantling the levers to remove the handlebars. The only flexibility advntage is on height adjustment........but for me I cn't make a height adjustment without making a length adjustment.

I think the problem is that most racing bikes have very short head tubes for inflexible riders....and most riders want these highly marketed racing bikes. The Legend I just sold was fitted by an ex racer.......I wanted a longer headtube and the rest of the bike proprtioned, but I let him talk me out of it.....I hated the look of the final bike and ended up replacing it.

Now when I'm looking at a bike, if the headtube isn't the proper length, I won't buy it........The ideal spacers, for me are between 1 and 2 CM.....this gives me enough flexibility to lower it in the summer and raise it in the winter.

As someone else said though....whatever gets someone else out riding.

Just me .02

Len

Dave

11-26-2006, 12:09 PM

I've done some calculations comparing the max height of one my old 3T quill stems, a common racy stem of day, to a typical new setup and found little difference in the maximum height that can be achieved.

The amount the head tube extends above the TT has not changed by any significant amount on most stock frames from the major manufacturers. Instead of a threaded top section which has a height of about 15mm (plus the lock nut), you now have a 15mm top section on integrated headsets or just no lock nut on conventional headsets.

With the maximum 3cm of spacer and a very conservative 84 degree stem, you can get the bars up just as high, perhaps higher, than the 3T quill.

Folks who used special extended length quills are the only riders who will need high rise stems. They had a goofy looking setup with a quill and still do with a threadless.

atmo

11-26-2006, 12:14 PM

Folks who used special extended length quills are the only riders who will need high rise stems. They had a goofy looking setup with a quill and still do with a threadless.

hey - dave gets it atmo.

stevep

11-26-2006, 12:25 PM

if you can't fit properly with the contact points where they need to be on a modern racing bike, then you don't need a modern racing bike, regardless of what makes a beautiful statement. if you can't ride it, and you can't ride if fast, you don't need it.

in ten years i'll be 50 and riding a nice steel tournesol

no robert,
the contacts are exactly where they need to be. but they get there with the aid of 3 cm of spacers. and i like to ride a race bike... cause i like it... and thats the way it is.

Len J

11-26-2006, 12:42 PM

atmo

11-26-2006, 12:47 PM

while you can get to the same position with 3 cm of spacers....3 cm of spacers makes for one of the least attractive front ends I've ever seen...IMO.....So to get a bike that looks reasonable, you need to lengthen the HT, ST, & Raise the TT &/or slope the TT or some combination thereof.....this usually means custom since so few stock frames have reasonably long HT's.

Just my opinion though.

Len
that 3cm of spacers is the 2006 equal of
what was quite normal on a quill stem
back in its day. atmo 3cm is alot, but
not when juxtaposed against a quill
stem baseline of aesthetics.

Len J

11-26-2006, 01:26 PM

that 3cm of spacers is the 2006 equal of
what was quite normal on a quill stem
back in its day. atmo 3cm is alot, but
not when juxtaposed against a quill
stem baseline of aesthetics.

but the look is no where near the same.

Len

atmo

11-26-2006, 01:47 PM

but the look is no where near the same.

Len
no need to convince me atmo.
i like threadless. the issue at hand
is real estate, and you can thank the
headset companies for reducing the
area that they take up, as well as the
fact that aesthetic convention took
a carbon fork in the road when lugs
became less and less ubiquitous in
the mainstream; with an upper head
lug, one's eyes had a natural sight line
with which to guage what is elegant on
a properly set up bicycle, one that not only
fits, but is designed well. without that lug,
the top tube and the head tube are no longer
bound to the singular contact point that many
(who judge) are keyed in on atmo. norma
desmond may have been right atmo.

"I am big, it's the pictures that have gotten small."

ergott

11-26-2006, 02:08 PM

I hestiate to use the 'g-word' but it really is about pulling it all together as
a whole. My Sachs and DeRosa have identical contact points, but they're
very different designs, and I think they both work.

g

g-word. You've got g-bars on a Sachs. Sach-religious. ;)

Len J

11-26-2006, 02:14 PM

It's like the bike industry never realized the change in look.

Len

Grant McLean

11-26-2006, 02:30 PM

g-word. You've got g-bars on a Sachs. Sach-religious. ;)

they used be to round. I have a kung-fu grip. :)

g

manet

11-26-2006, 02:31 PM

... I have a kung-fu grip.

g

careful _ you'll go blind

Grant McLean

11-26-2006, 02:33 PM

careful _ you'll go blind

what are you saying,
grant doesn't get it?

g

manet

11-26-2006, 02:35 PM

what are you saying,
grant doesn't get it?

g

in some areas nothing is something.

kbwheels

11-26-2006, 02:44 PM

I have been experimenting with stem height recently. I have a deda magic stem 120 mm with a 80 degree rise. How much higher will my handle bars sit with a 120 mm stem with a 84 degree rise? Thanks.

manet

11-26-2006, 02:59 PM

I have been experimenting with stem height recently. I have a deda magic stem 120 mm with a 80 degree rise. How much higher will my handle bars sit with a 120 mm stem with a 84 degree rise? Thanks.

http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html

Fat Robert

11-26-2006, 03:38 PM

no robert,
the contacts are exactly where they need to be. but they get there with the aid of 3 cm of spacers. and i like to ride a race bike... cause i like it... and thats the way it is.

does this mean i can't get a deal on a vxrs?

:) :banana: :)

PBWrench

11-26-2006, 04:01 PM

All of this is an argument for stem sell research.

catulle

11-26-2006, 04:50 PM

http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html

I'll ask my urologist if he can get me one of them charts, atmo.

stevep

11-26-2006, 04:56 PM

does this mean i can't get a deal on a vxrs?

:) :banana: :)

robert, before that i was going to give you a vxrs.
now i have a univega velentino sport with a broken rear hanger... otherwise..good shape.

Fat Robert

11-26-2006, 05:00 PM

robert, before that i was going to give you a vxrs.
now i have a univega velentino sport with a broken rear hanger... otherwise..good shape.

put the rear triangle in a vise, bend it around some, and you have a deal

palincss

11-26-2006, 05:09 PM

DBRK;

I must admit that when I wrote that comment, I knew you would
see it differently.
So my question is:
Should form follow function?
or
Should function be limited by our desire to achieve form?

VF

It all depends on how you define "function," doesn't it? Suppose we do this - let's say we want to create a device that will attach a handlebar to a steerer tube. It obviously needs to move up and down so as to suit different riders, and to allow for riders varying their positions as they age.

Would you for one second consider as a way of achieving this a device that requires you to once for all choose a set position that can be lowered but not raised? Why, that would be simply absurd, wouldn't it?

So in this case, "function" would dictate a form that allowed the device holding the handlebar to slide up and down. Hm... one way you could achieve that would be to have the device - let's call it "a stem" - slide up and down inside the steerer tube. You could hold it in position with an expander wedge, which could be loosened and tightened merely with the use of a 5 or 6 mm Allen key. Brilliant! Moving the "stem" wouldn't change the adjustment of the headset at all. You could do it on the road! And so on...

manet

11-26-2006, 05:16 PM

Peter P.

11-26-2006, 07:52 PM

I think the problem is aesthetics have gotten in the way of practicality. If we had any brains at all, we'd leave our steerer tubes at a length which would allow similar adjustment to quill stems and just shuffle spacers around as needed/desired.

Instead, we've created a mentality that says ANY spacers above the stem is a faux pas that's not to be tolerated.

And I don't want to hear any crap about how any steerer above the stem gets in the way of drop bar positions, aero, blah blah blah.

Serpico

11-26-2006, 08:07 PM

in some areas nothing is something.

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

eddief

11-26-2006, 08:18 PM

1. 60 cm Rambouillet with Nitto 9 cm quill stem, bars a bit above the saddle

2. 58 cm Kogswell P with Salsa 10 cm 90 degree quill stem, bars even with saddle

3. Sloping top tube Rex, 22 cm headtube, 20 cm spacers, 84 degree Oval Concepts threadless stem, bars even with saddle

4. truly compact Giant OCR in a size Large. Silly short integrated headset headtube at 19 cm. To make up for not enough stack height it has 40 cm of spacers and a 10 cm Oval threadless stem and 96 degrees.

I agree with the aesthetics of dbrk nearly 110%, but the contact points on these bikes all work for me quite well. The Giant is gangly looking at best, but continues to be so much fun to ride it's almost rediculous.

I dig well proportioned aesthetics and as Ray said, love the gangly, somewhat uglies cause they need to be ridden too.

manet

11-26-2006, 08:26 PM

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

and in canada they are cuban

dirtdigger88

11-26-2006, 08:49 PM

and in canada they are cuban

what are they called in Monica?

Jason

manet

11-26-2006, 08:54 PM

what are they called in Monica?

Jason

Cigar Style. Style is a nomenclature given to cigars which generically denotes its length and diameter. (the term "shape" is interchangeable with style.) We have to get a little technical, but bear with me as the technicalities can be easily understood. A cigar length is measured in eights of an inch. The diameter is called Ring Gage (RG) and is measured in sixty-fourths of an inch. For example, a nomenclature of 6" x 50RG would specify a cigar being 6 inches long and 50/64ths of an inch in diameter; a smidgen over �ths of an inch. The style of a cigar with these dimensions would be classified a "Toro." A Toro style encompasses cigar dimensions from 5-5/8ths to 6-5/8ths inches in length; a ring gage from 48 to 54. If you own the factory and you produce a cigar which qualifies as a Toro, you might just call it a Toro; or, you can name it anything you want. But, if you as a customer walk into The Wharf, a tobacconist, and ask for a Toro style, you�ll end up with something around 7 x 50.

It is common to classify a cigar as belonging to a classical style, for example, a classical corona style regardless of whatever the manufacturer call the cigar. The dimensions of a classical style are obtained by taking the middle-of-the-road dimensions of a specific style. Thus, a classical corona style is 5 � x 42.

Style is a handy way to refer to a cigar size without knowing its specific factory name. The most common style names and dimensions follow:

Panatela: 5 � to 6 l/2, 35-39 RG.
Corona: 5 � to 5 �, 40-44 RG.
Robusto: 4 � to 5 �, 48-54 RG.
Toro: 5 5/8 to 6 5/8, 48-54 RG.
Churchill: 6� to 7 �, 49-54 RG.