Quill Stems

[Marvinlungwitz]

Cutting more thread into the steerer is usually only necessary if one uses a fork meant for a tall bike on a short frame.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

Mostly that you can't thread carbon steerer tubes.

Well, treadless came first as a way for fork(mostly MTB suspension) makers to SAVE $..make one or two steerers(1 inch, 1 1/8inch) instead of a ton of them in different lengths. Then the marketeers took over, painted it as some sort of HUGE performance gain...THEN it morphed into road bikes and adios quill stems. WAY before carbon steerers.

DID that $ savings make it to the end user? Nope..$ actually went up cuz of the HUGE performance gains...doncha know.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by palincss

but that adjustment range falls far short of what is possible with a stem like a Nitto Technomic or Technomic Deluxe."

I would think if you need to use a Technomic stem, with a long quill and a short extension, you have an extreme fit case or the frame is too small. These head tube extenders are available for threadless https://www.amazon.com/Delta-Cycle-B...44687058&psc=1

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Well, treadless came first as a way for fork(mostly MTB suspension) makers to SAVE $..make one or two steerers(1 inch, 1 1/8inch) instead of a ton of them in different lengths. Then the marketeers took over, painted it as some sort of HUGE performance gain...THEN it morphed into road bikes and adios quill stems. WAY before carbon steerers.

DID that $ savings make it to the end user? Nope..$ actually went up cuz of the HUGE performance gains...doncha know.

Hey, don't leave out the 1 1/4" steerers! I've got three bikes with them. (around '94)

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I would think if you need to use a Technomic stem, with a long quill and a short extension, you have an extreme fit case or the frame is too small.

or you just don't buy into the paradigm that road bikes are supposed to have a large bar drop "cause that's how race bikes are supposed to be!"

I was just talking to someone the other day and he was commenting on how it's normal to have to "shake your hands out" every so often.. no, no it's not! it means you have too much weight on your hands! bringing your bars up (among other things) should fix that, and that could be done easily with a quill stem..

[benb]

I am just barely old enough to have had one road bike that had a quill stem. I think I had 2 MTBs that had quill stems IIRC and neither of them ever gave me a minute of trouble. But they were also way less capable bikes and didn't get rode anywhere near the same way as my more recent MTBs.

I mostly have fond memories of the quill stem bike because bike fit was somehow a lot easier.

Front ends got a lot shorter in that transition on road bikes and I have never fit as easily on a road bike as I did on the quill bike.

Adjustment is/was so much easier. No need to swap parts. Know you're doing a short race, slam it down. Now you're going to ride 8 hours? Raise it up in seconds.

Sure there are manufacturing advantages, they don't really matter once you got the bike. The weight weenie, stiffness advantages, etc.. do matter to the rider. Are they that big of a deal?

Now it takes about 10x as long to adjust your bars, maybe you (like me) end up with a box of stems. Maybe you have to swap out spacers to make the fork preload work cause the stems all seem to have different stack height.

I don't know.. I used to really like to be able to raise my bars really easily early in the season and work them down.

I don't think the current system is the best, they could do better.. but they don't really care. The whole bike industry seems to like it fine. More money saved in manufacturing, more high margin stems sold, more labor at the shop charged for swapping stems, and new riders are more likely to end up paying for a bike fit at the shop.

Now there are other things going on.. the slam it/long and low trend started at the same time. Horizontal top tubes died at the same time. All that stuff is definitely a part of it all so it's not all the fault of the steerer/stem interface. But I do think they could find a way to combine the attributes of the two systems into something even better than both if they cared.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by benb

I am just barely old enough to have had one road bike that had a quill stem. I think I had 2 MTBs that had quill stems IIRC and neither of them ever gave me a minute of trouble. But they were also way less capable bikes and didn't get rode anywhere near the same way as my more recent MTBs.

I mostly have fond memories of the quill stem bike because bike fit was somehow a lot easier.

Front ends got a lot shorter in that transition on road bikes and I have never fit as easily on a road bike as I did on the quill bike.

Adjustment is/was so much easier. No need to swap parts. Know you're doing a short race, slam it down. Now you're going to ride 8 hours? Raise it up in seconds.

Sure there are manufacturing advantages, they don't really matter once you got the bike. The weight weenie, stiffness advantages, etc.. do matter to the rider. Are they that big of a deal?

Now it takes about 10x as long to adjust your bars, maybe you (like me) end up with a box of stems. Maybe you have to swap out spacers to make the fork preload work cause the stems all seem to have different stack height.

I don't know.. I used to really like to be able to raise my bars really easily early in the season and work them down.

I don't think the current system is the best, they could do better.. but they don't really care. The whole bike industry seems to like it fine. More money saved in manufacturing, more high margin stems sold, more labor at the shop charged for swapping stems, and new riders are more likely to end up paying for a bike fit at the shop.

Now there are other things going on.. the slam it/long and low trend started at the same time. Horizontal top tubes died at the same time. All that stuff is definitely a part of it all so it's not all the fault of the steerer/stem interface. But I do think they could find a way to combine the attributes of the two systems into something even better than both if they cared.

^ that's what I was trying to say, Ben just said it WAY better!

[mhespenheide]

It's easier to change the height of a quill stem.

Once you've got the levers and tape installed on the handlebars, it's easier to change the length of a threadless stem. (You can change the angle, too, if you have a bunch of other threadless stems hanging around.)

[tomato coupe]

I prefer integrated bar / quill stem setups.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Well, treadless came first as a way for fork(mostly MTB suspension) makers to SAVE $..make one or two steerers(1 inch, 1 1/8inch) instead of a ton of them in different lengths. Then the marketeers took over, painted it as some sort of HUGE performance gain...THEN it morphed into road bikes and adios quill stems. WAY before carbon steerers.

DID that $ savings make it to the end user? Nope..$ actually went up cuz of the HUGE performance gains...doncha know.

Why can't a design change be an advantage to both the manufacturers and the consumers? In this case, it is both.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by palincss

Or by the fact that a carbon steerer cannot have more than 3 cm of spacers above the headset. And given that fact, a more accurate statement of your thesis might be that "By moving spacers above and blow the stem and flipping stems up and down, the same amount of height is adjustment is possible as with a typical quill stems of the 1960s and 1970s, but that adjustment range falls far short of what is possible with a stem like a Nitto Technomic or Technomic Deluxe."

Comparing a (threadless) carbon steerer to a (threaded) steel steerer is rather apples and oranges, and not a valid comparison. While carbon steerers do often have spacer height limitations, metal steerers generally do not. On a metal steerer, you can have relatively large stacks of spacers both above and below the steerer, which can be swapped around at will. And just like it is true that a Nitto Technomic stem can increase the bar height quite a bit, bikes generally don't come with these stems so they must be purchased at extra cost. This is pretty much the same cost as purchasing as purchasing a high rise threadless stem, or a threadless steerer extender to use your existing stem, both of which can raise the handlebar the same amount as the Technomic stem.

So, the primary advantage being claimed here is that quill stems can be quickly readjusted to different heights (and that quickness seems to be based on only needing to loosen and re-tighten a single bolt). But who really does this often? I don't know many people that frequently readjust their stem height. But even if you have a threadless steerer, with very little work it is possible to set it up so that height adjustment is just as easy.

The simplest way make a threadless stem easily height adjustable is to start by not having your steerer cut to a ridiculously short length (I don't know why people insist on doing this). The only other part then needed is a locking steerer collar, which can be clamped into place just above the headset to hold the bearing preload. Once that is done, you can move the stem up and down the top portion of the steerer at will, by simply loosening the stem clamping bolt, setting the desired height, and then retightening. If a larger adjustment is required, the stem can be flipped (although this will require loosening/tightening 4 more bolts, probably with the same tool). If the steerer has already been cut too short, then instead of the locking collar, a steerer extender can be installed. As before, the stem can now be moved up and down the extender at will.

[benb]

All my bikes basically (including the carbon one) have the uncut steerer so I can indeed move the stem up by just unbolting stuff and rearranging the spacers. Carbon steerers obviously still give you some room for adjustment.. 30mm or so IIRC.

It still doesn't change the # of steps to make threadless seem convenient.

The # of steps to follow the "rules" and move the threadless stem up/down is still about 3x longer than the steps for a threaded stem.

And that is ignoring almost no one had quill stems that required use of a torque wrench/key whereas almost all of us have stems/steerers now that do mandate or come with strong warnings to always use a torque wrench/key.

Threadless is something you do in your garage and make sure you have all the tools IMO. Threaded was something you might do on a whim on the side of the road, no more serious than turning a barrel adjuster on a derailleur cable in the middle of the ride.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

All my bikes basically (including the carbon one) have the uncut steerer so I can indeed move the stem up by just unbolting stuff and rearranging the spacers. Carbon steerers obviously still give you some room for adjustment.. 30mm or so IIRC.

It still doesn't change the # of steps to make threadless seem convenient.

The # of steps to follow the "rules" and move the threadless stem up/down is still about 3x longer than the steps for a threaded stem.

And that is ignoring almost no one had quill stems that required use of a torque wrench/key whereas almost all of us have stems/steerers now that do mandate or come with strong warnings to always use a torque wrench/key.

Threadless is something you do in your garage and make sure you have all the tools IMO. Threaded was something you might do on a whim on the side of the road, no more serious than turning a barrel adjuster on a derailleur cable in the middle of the ride.

This is the locking collar I mentioned above:



This collar is positioned just above the headset. Once the headset bearing preload has been set, the collar is tightened, and the bearing pre-load will be maintained even if the stem is removed. On a carbon steerer, you will still want to keep spacers (as needed) between the stem and locking collar, but on a metal steerer, the spacers are no longer required. This makes adjusting the stem just as easy to adjust as a quill stem - loosen the stem bolt, slide stem up or down the steerer, tighten stem bolt. Actually, this may be easier than adjusting a quill stem, as sometimes you need to pound on the quill stem bolt if the expander gets stuck. (Note: Metal steerers are not as sensitive to bolt torque as carbon steerers, so you don't really need a torque wrench to adjust the stem height. But even if you do want to control bolt torque, there are alan keys available with pre-set torque limits.)

Really, the threadless steerer system is not that complicated, and some simple setup makes it no more complicated (and sometimes easier) than threaded steerers.

(Note: The locking collar has a second purpose, even if you don't to adjust the stem. Frequently it is required to remove the handlebars/stem to pack a bike for shipping. The locking collar will allow the stem/handlebars to be removed/reinstalled quickly without affecting the headset preload.)

[benb]

Definitely a cool gadget. I could see using it on an inexpensive bike that still had a steel steerer I think.

[mstateglfr]

The back and forth is funny to me because I have never thought midride that what I could really use is a change in bar height.
Either the bars are the correct height or they are wrong. I can't imagine needing to change the stem angle/length/height more than once a season...maybe.

Adjusting a threaded stem height is quick, but if the cables are cut properly there really isn't much room to raise a threaded stem.
Adjusting a threadless stem height is not as quick, but it takes all of about 2min to unscrew and then tighten 3 bolts(on most road bikes). Just keep 15mm or so of spacers on top of the stem and you are good to adjust. Again though, there really shouldn't be much room to just increase height on the fly since cables and housing are cut to length of the initial bar height.


It seems like some here need an adjustable angle stem and some floppy cables to allow them to continually tinker with fit while riding.