Quill stem bikes--handling?

[sharky]

My quill stem bikes (all steel,and older) handle differently than my threadless setup bikes (alum, ti, carbon, and steel) and I was wondering if the threaded setup had any effect on the steering in your experience.

[Kevin]

I always thought that the handling differences I experienced on quills and threadless was caused by the different frames and the ages of the frames I was riding. However, I have quills on old steel bikes and I have threadless on ti and ti/carbon combos. So I have no experience with comparing the quill vs threadless on the same frame material. It is an interesting question. I guess it is possible that the newer threadless stems are stiffer than the older quill stems and that this causes a difference in handling .

Kevin

[saab2000]

I have a bike for which I had a threadless fork built. The reason for the new fork was poor handling with the original due to incorrect rake, but that is another story.

The new setup does handle differently, but that is likely to be almost all due to the new rake. What is different is that the new stem-fork combo seems to be significantly stiffer. That is neither good nor bad and I am not saying that the previous setup seemed to be inadequately stiff. But the new one with a Ritchey WCS stem in place of a Cinelli 1/A seems to be considerably more rigid, and this will have some minor effect on handling. I notice it it when climbing out of the saddle.

[David Kirk]

I think you'll find that a threadless set up will have a bit sharper handling and a bit firmer feel to it.....it mostly due to the stems and how they attach to the fork. The reason is that with a quill set up the quill is fixed at the bottom in the steerer and is free to float a bit at the top of the steerer. It in effect pivots at the bottom where it is attached.

With a threadless system the stem is firmly attached to the steerer and isn't allowed any movement at all. It feels firmer and a bit more precise.

Does that make sense ? There's still some coffee in the pot so I may not have had enough yet.

Dave

[Dr. Doofus]

It makes perfect sense, David. One is a direct connection, the other is..."mediated." Also, 1 and 1/8 is stiffer, and anyone who ever sprinted on a mid nineties TTT quill can attest that, yep, those old things flexed...although the ITM welded ones were pretty firm....

I do like the "feel" difference of threadless...but I don't think perceived BB flex matters a whit...what's the framebuilder lowdown on that one? I read a few studies in the 80s and 90s on frame flex that concluded that, although it might nag you like sand in your undies, it doesn't translate into a signiicant difference in real speed...Dave...jerk...anybody?


Robert


Who still likes 753, and needs to drop a kilo so he can see those junkie veins on his upper thighs again....

[Sam in VA]

That makes sense to me. I suspect that you are getting some rocking movement at the top as well as a bit of twist.

If this is true however, I would have thught that one of the stem manufactureres (or an innovator like Singer??) would have developed a lightweight double clamp or something in the past.

I really dislike the look of a threadless stem on a nice lugged frame though; so I'll continue to suffer the weight and handling penalties and use them as excuses for poor performances.

[BigMac]

I'm with DK, it's the flex of quill inside steerer you are feeling. I would also suggest its the neck of forged alloy quill stems that can twist as well. This is more pronounced in out-of-saddle sprints or climbing, though some of the larger riders such as I find this flex annoyingly omnipresent no matter how hard I'm pushing. The biggest proponents of quill stems seem to be smaller riders. Nothing particularly wrong with quill stems, I really like their flowing lines, they are just inferior to threadless for precise feel and flex resistance. That said, many of the current threadless stems flex wildly as well, due in large part to the weight weenie bias of the consumer base which vendors appeal to. The only off-the-shelf threadless stem I have found to be of reasonable stiffness is the Thompson, however that thing is flat-out the ugliest bicycle component ever introduced, at least to my conservative eye. I have gone exclusively to custom filet brazed Cr-Mo stems over the last several years which allows me to dial in perfect rise, extension and torsional stiffness.

For those proponents of long stem extensions, threadless is also your best choice. There are very few if any forged alloy quill stems with extensions longer than 12.5cm, and for good reason as they would flex horribly. The Salsa TIG'd steel stem are available up to 14cm if I'm not mistaken but they too flex way too much for my taste and the welds are fugly. Back in the day when every quality bike wore a Cinelli 1A quill, the longest available extension was 12cm. I'm not sure why anyone would desire a longer stem except on perhaps a 'cross bike used on very bad roads or a very short trail'd geo bike. If you need more than 12cm extension, definitely threadless is a better choice. In fact if you're getting a Serotta or any other custom fitted frame, you do not need the vertical adjustability of quill stem for proper fit thus threadless is the only rational choice...with all due respect to resident quill-fan extraordinare dbrk.

Doofus: BB and frame stiffness is one of those "at the moment" sales gimicks, perpetuated by vendors of aluminum and cf frames. A stiffer frame will not climb anymore efficiently than one with a bit of flex, it will feel different and will generally descend a bit more confidently, as long as stays have some flex, but that's about it. To quote Andy Hampsten following his triumphant ride up L'Alpe D'Huez, "the only thing scarier than descending on my TVT is climbing w/o it". Note: The TVT was an early generation alloy lugged-cf tubed frame known for it's lightweight and remarkable lack of stiffness, particularly in BB area. Pantani's climbing Bianchi frame was among the most flexible frames I've ever seen, next to of course the TVT, Vitus and Alon frames from 80's.

Ride on!

[Climb01742]

picking up on bigmac's last point: in conversations with both kelly and david kirk, both gentlemen said that a single-minded pursuit of frame stiffness actually begins to work against a good climbing frame. the proper amount of flex, in the right place, aids in climbing.

[David Kirk]

I should have an ( I hope) interesting article up on my website sometime very soon...in the week or less. It's about frame flex. I look forward to your feedback on it.

Dave

[dbrk]

Though I don't think of myself as a small person, I suppose standing next to BigMac I would resemble a hafling.

It is also little wonder that I disagree with BigMac's conclusion, that threadless is the only "rational" or even the best choice for a modern custom bike. First, I would argue that most of us can't really muscle a bike around like our Mac can. The putative stiffness/directness matter strikes me as, at best, a herring colored red. I am not talking about Clydesdales but the notion that only Weasels (the curious opposite term) are fit for quill is just not so. And here's why... (Second,) precisely because the bike is custom all of the issues of quill length causing flex are equally moot when compared to threadless. To wit, you build the bike so that you don't have to show much quill at all. Just build a darn bigger bike. Spacers, risers, PAHH!!! Bad compromises. On all of my lugged steel bikes, the quill is buried well below the max line. Any flex I feel when pressing as hard as I can when climbing is _welcome_, yet another instance of the bike working with me rather than being an inorganic rock. So if you don't have to show much quill, the bike not only looks great, it offers has to my tastes, no disadvantage. Last, threadless stems are BUTT UGLY on lugged steel traditional frames. Is that plainly judgmental enough? To me this is an aesthetic point that I cannot see the reason to compromise, unless you don't think they are ugly, in which case, you are entitled to your opinion. But they are still ugly anyways. And there is only one sort of exception to my narrow minded way of thinking: if a steel bike has significant slope, say like Aimee's HelloKitty special, or if it has some silly fat tubing and is TIG'd (like Emma), then it's a go with the flow of modernity issue. Similarly with titanium OS tubing or carbon, high-zooty stuff (like an Ottrott or Z1, etc.), the I think that threadless looks better. But these bikes are all ugly in comparison to beautiful lugged steel, there isn't even any comparison to me. There is no downside to a quill stem unless you are truly a Clydesdale or you are a racer and need every advantage (perceived or real). Nitto's Pearl is as nice as anything that has ever been made.

Now as a point of history, 'cause someone asked, Herse (but not Singer) made threadless stems in the 1950s, always to the same effect as a quilled stem. In other words, Herse built the bikes with much longer head tubes so that there wouldn't be any spacers (never seen a Herse threadless with spacers, ever). No risers, no spacers, just a stem attached to the steerer tube. I'm not sure why he did this but it wasn't common and you don't see it as a rationale for stiffer bigger bikes. So I will ask Rene when we meet later (hopefully much later for me...).

dbrk