Large Road Frames and the Myths

Fred Clydesdale

In article <FGTfc.754$Aq.254@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
"Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote:


> > I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
> > and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
> > for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. (I know there always
> > is the exception)
>
> The "exceptions" are the rule. Very few cyclists actually race. I don't know
> what the statistics are, but of the road cyclists I know, I'd guess it's 1 out
> of 100. Plenty participate in organized/club rides, but actual races? No.

i seem to remember that someone (marketing director?) at campagnolo
once said that they made three quality levels of components: for
the amateur, the professional, and the doctor.

when i was a kid racing on a second (or third) hand motobecane, i used
to *hate* those 40 year old guys who'd come into the shop and plunk
down a bajillion dollars to shave 3 ounces off their seat when it was
obvious that the real weight savings was somewhat north of the seat.
now that i've got my kestrel all tricked out with record carbon
pieces for my dinky 150 mile weeks, i've been forced to adjust my
opinions.

fc

Rick Onanian

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:22:28 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
>> Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
>> adjust.
>
>Yeah. But not height. That's harder to adjust and sometimes

Barely. A few more screws to turn, flip the stem, maybe move some
spacers, all done. That usually provides as much range as the quill
stems that usually come stock on threaded bikes.

>impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer that
>look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.

I thought we were discussing ability and functionality, not vanity.

The shortest distance from point A to point B is, of course, a
straight line, not up too far then down and forward. Why not have
some grace and go directly where you want? Why have gangly corners?

If you like that, then why don't you make it go up 6 inches or a
foot and come down to the bars? How come the same style isn't found
in seatstays? They could go out past the axle, then down and forward
to the dropout. Those would be some classic lines, eh?

For my own vanity, I think a stem with a corner higher than the bars
looks ridiculous. Functionally, that's extra material (weight), aero
penalty (it sticks up above the bars after all), and in the unlikely
event of a collision or endo, it could be a head or crotch-destroyer
(vs a stem with a rise angle that your head or crotch will slide off
of).

Not to mention, you need more extension for the same height.

My mountain bike has a threaded stem, and it rises. Looks fine
there, just as the rising threadless on my road bike looks fine.
--
Rick Onanian

Chalo

Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:

> Barely. A few more screws to turn, flip the stem, maybe move some
> spacers, all done. That usually provides as much range as the quill
> stems that usually come stock on threaded bikes.

Many quill stems came with no vertical adjustment, minimum and maximum
insertion being the same depth. Control Tech stems spring to mind,
but there were more than a few. Most of the rest offered a whopping
3/4" to 1" range of adjustability. And of course, most of the stems
that offered more range of height adjustment than that were of the
heavy, flexible, weak, homely, and crotch-threatening "7"-shaped solid
aluminum variety.

In the quill stem's heyday, as now, the way to get a variety of bar
positions was to have a variety of stems available. This is what
threaded-headset buffs tend to forget in their analysis of the
situation. However, the range of stem shapes and sizes available then
was _much_ better than it is now, for no obvious reason. Particularly
stems with lots of rise or those with extensions longer than 140mm
have mostly vanished from the scene.

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> >impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer that
> >look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.

It's hard to look goofier than a Nitto Technomic with 6" of exposed
quill and a _horizontal_ extension! Makes you wonder whether folks
who favor this type of stem conduct their bike trips in the same way--
by overshooting the mark in the wrong direction, then making an acute
turn back towards the destination!

Chalo Colina

Matt O'Toole

Chalo wrote:

> Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Barely. A few more screws to turn, flip the stem, maybe move some
>> spacers, all done. That usually provides as much range as the quill
>> stems that usually come stock on threaded bikes.
>
> Many quill stems came with no vertical adjustment, minimum and maximum
> insertion being the same depth. Control Tech stems spring to mind,
> but there were more than a few. Most of the rest offered a whopping
> 3/4" to 1" range of adjustability. And of course, most of the stems
> that offered more range of height adjustment than that were of the
> heavy, flexible, weak, homely, and crotch-threatening "7"-shaped solid
> aluminum variety.
>
> In the quill stem's heyday, as now, the way to get a variety of bar
> positions was to have a variety of stems available. This is what
> threaded-headset buffs tend to forget in their analysis of the
> situation. However, the range of stem shapes and sizes available then
> was _much_ better than it is now, for no obvious reason. Particularly
> stems with lots of rise or those with extensions longer than 140mm
> have mostly vanished from the scene.

All very, painfully true. Unfortunately, two piece handlebar clamps were
unknown (why?), so you had to undo/redo your bar tape and brake levers for a
"simple" stem swap.

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>> impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer
>>> that look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.
>
> It's hard to look goofier than a Nitto Technomic with 6" of exposed
> quill and a _horizontal_ extension! Makes you wonder whether folks
> who favor this type of stem conduct their bike trips in the same way--
> by overshooting the mark in the wrong direction, then making an acute
> turn back towards the destination!

It is kinda lame, a lot of extra material that doesn't contribute to strength.

There's no reason for threadless setups to look ugly. There are a few sleek
designs, which don't look silly with lots of spacers under them.
Unfortunately, a lot of things are ugly, even when there's no good reason for
them to be.

I get annoyed by the modern and ugly vs. retro choice we're often presented
with, in every area of design. Sometimes it seems the design world stopped
progressing about 30 years ago.

Matt O.

A Muzi

-much snip-
>>Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Barely. A few more screws to turn, flip the stem, maybe move some
>>>spacers, all done. That usually provides as much range as the quill
>>>stems that usually come stock on threaded bikes.

> Chalo wrote:
>>However, the range of stem shapes and sizes available then
>>was _much_ better than it is now, for no obvious reason. Particularly
>>stems with lots of rise or those with extensions longer than 140mm
>>have mostly vanished from the scene.

>>Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer
>>>>that look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.

(Chalo again, with the best piece of writing here today- by far)
>>It's hard to look goofier than a Nitto Technomic with 6" of exposed
>>quill and a _horizontal_ extension! Makes you wonder whether folks
>>who favor this type of stem conduct their bike trips in the same way--
>>by overshooting the mark in the wrong direction, then making an acute
>>turn back towards the destination!

(Matt O'Toole wrote more but I snipped it):
> I get annoyed by the modern and ugly vs. retro choice we're often presented
> with, in every area of design. Sometimes it seems the design world stopped
> progressing about 30 years ago.

Well there you go. Taste.
There are guys who positively _like_ the look of a
Technomic. I won't ever have an ugly faceplate stem on a
bike of mine.
What is one side of a bar to wrap? A minute? Two? For which
I trade a sleek stem away? Geez. You look right at the darn
thing all the time, too.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Rick Onanian

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:10:54 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:
>Technomic. I won't ever have an ugly faceplate stem on a
>bike of mine.

The faceplate is nice; it's symmetrical. A single bolt is not.

>What is one side of a bar to wrap? A minute? Two? For which

Maybe for you. For those of us who only very rarely must wrap a bar,
we have to look up instructions, figure out which way to start and
which way to wrap, unwrap our mistakes, figure out how to deal with
the brake levers, hope that the end goes where we want it, etc.

It's trivial for somebody who has lots of practice, but for somebody
who doesn't, it's either a long and arduous process, or the end
result looks (and maybe feels) awful. There's no stem uglier than a
botched wrap job by somebody lazy enough not to try it again until
he gets it right.

Even for somebody who can wrap in 90 seconds, that's fine for one
stem change, but if he finds he does need to try many different
stems (maybe he's helping a friend fit an old bike), those minutes
and two minutes do add up.

All of which is optional, regardless of headset type, since both
types of stems are offered in both clamp styles...although more
commonly available in certain combinations.

>I trade a sleek stem away? Geez. You look right at the darn
>thing all the time, too.

Hey, get your eyes off the stem and on the road before you crash!
<G>
--
Rick Onanian

Qui si parla Campagnolo

mark-<< As Rivendell explains in part, that usually the more expensive a Bike
frame is, usually the smaller it will be per recommendations of the
LBS >><BR><BR>

This is not true. The frameset should fit the person, according to what kind of
riding they wish to do.

mark<< I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. >><BR><BR>


Also not true here. VERY few framesets we sell are to people that race. If the
person is a racer, we don't sell them a too small frameset any more often we
sell a too large frameset to somebody that doesn't race.

We ensure the frameset fits, seattube angle and top tube length wise and then
ensure the top hbars, top saddle is what they want, either thru stems, forks,
headtube eaxtebsions, whatevere. To get a larger frameset to make sure the
hbars and saddle are more level, with a teeny stem, is bad sizing.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Chris Zacho The Wheelman

From: usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com (Jesse=A0Falsone)

>The longer top tube will stretch you out
>some, which makes rasing the bars a
>good idea for better comfort (bars come
>back too as you raise them).

A shorter stem will also correct this (within limits). Much more than
just raising it. Stems can be bought in ridiculously short lengths, too.
Handlebars also, should be available with less forward sweep, again,
reducing reach.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Mike Jacoubowsky

> We ensure the frameset fits, seattube angle and top tube length wise and
then
> ensure the top hbars, top saddle is what they want, either thru stems,
forks,
> headtube eaxtebsions, whatevere. To get a larger frameset to make sure the
> hbars and saddle are more level, with a teeny stem, is bad sizing.

Agreed, but I think the point is that, back-in-the-day, there was a lot more
variability in top-tube length, with some bikes having *very* short
top-tubes for their size. My Bob Jackson was like that; it was about 2cm
shorter than my Cinelli. That's a big difference, and it's not like the
Cinelli was really long; it's virtually identical to the dimensions of my
Trek.

Nowadays, actual top-tube differences (after being corrected for seat-tube
angle effect) are actually within a pretty narrow range.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040417093257.26574.00000060@mb-m13.aol.com...
> mark-<< As Rivendell explains in part, that usually the more expensive a
Bike
> frame is, usually the smaller it will be per recommendations of the
> LBS >><BR><BR>
>
> This is not true. The frameset should fit the person, according to what
kind of
> riding they wish to do.
>
> mark<< I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
> and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
> for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Also not true here. VERY few framesets we sell are to people that race. If
the
> person is a racer, we don't sell them a too small frameset any more often
we
> sell a too large frameset to somebody that doesn't race.
>
> We ensure the frameset fits, seattube angle and top tube length wise and
then
> ensure the top hbars, top saddle is what they want, either thru stems,
forks,
> headtube eaxtebsions, whatevere. To get a larger frameset to make sure the
> hbars and saddle are more level, with a teeny stem, is bad sizing.
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Mike Jacoubowsky

> > Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
> > adjust.
>
> Yeah. But not height. That's harder to adjust and sometimes
> impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer that
> look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.

In another thread (in rec.bicycles.misc), the supposed lack of adjustability
of threadless stems was brought up, so, since I was at the shop, I did some
experimenting.

With the 4cm stack height that's found on all Trek road frames, and a 9cm
17-degree stem, I'm able to accomplish a handlebar height that ranges from
parallel to the top of the headset all the way up to 9cm higher. That's a
range of adjustment of 9cm, without changing any parts. This is
accomplished by a combination of flipping the stem over and placing spacers
either above or below the stem. That's with *one* stem. Very few quill
stems come close to that; most have less than 3cm of adjustability. A stem
like the Nitto Technomic has more, assuming your head tube is tall enough to
accomodate the low end of the range (a place to store all that stem length
if you want it low).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:m27jwfk1gb.fsf@Stella-Blue.local...
> Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
>
> > Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
> > adjust.
>
> Yeah. But not height. That's harder to adjust and sometimes
> impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer that
> look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.

Paul Kopit

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:10:54 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>What is one side of a bar to wrap? A minute? Two? For which
>I trade a sleek stem away? Geez. You look right at the darn
>thing all the time, too.

Remove the bar tape, tape holding cables, levers, and any padding on
bar and then replacing it all take more than a couple of minutes.

And, yes, you look at it all the time and once over the decision of
which stem you like and need, you needn't to it again for a long
while.

Paul Kopit

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 06:49:05 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>With the 4cm stack height that's found on all Trek road frames, and a 9cm
>17-degree stem, I'm able to accomplish a handlebar height that ranges from
>parallel to the top of the headset all the way up to 9cm higher. That's a
>range of adjustment of 9cm, without changing any parts.

Ah, but there are still those of us that like the looks of a stem that
is parallel to the top tube. That would mean 4 cm of adjustment.
Aditionally, when you flip the stem over, you change the reach.

I believe that if you ride the road racing bicycle in the riding
position that it was designed for, that the correct size/fit frame
will permit you to ride the bicycle with the 17 degee stem, upright
and the 4 cm of spacers.

The myth of a large frame can be achieved by using a larger tire with
less air pressure.

Tim McNamara

Paul Kopit <p.kopit@SPAMverizon.net> writes:

> The myth of a large frame can be achieved by using a larger tire
> with less air pressure.

Huh?

Mike Jacoubowsky

> What is one side of a bar to wrap? A minute? Two? For which
> I trade a sleek stem away? Geez. You look right at the darn
> thing all the time, too.

Afraid neither I nor my staff are nearly as fast as you and yours. Also,
with the non-removable faceplate stems, there's a much-higher likelihood of
cosmetic damage to the bars, especially if you try to rush it.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:1081f3js6hgl398@corp.supernews.com...
> -much snip-
> >>Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>Barely. A few more screws to turn, flip the stem, maybe move some
> >>>spacers, all done. That usually provides as much range as the quill
> >>>stems that usually come stock on threaded bikes.
>
> > Chalo wrote:
> >>However, the range of stem shapes and sizes available then
> >>was _much_ better than it is now, for no obvious reason. Particularly
> >>stems with lots of rise or those with extensions longer than 140mm
> >>have mostly vanished from the scene.
>
> >>Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer
> >>>>that look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.
>
> (Chalo again, with the best piece of writing here today- by far)
> >>It's hard to look goofier than a Nitto Technomic with 6" of exposed
> >>quill and a _horizontal_ extension! Makes you wonder whether folks
> >>who favor this type of stem conduct their bike trips in the same way--
> >>by overshooting the mark in the wrong direction, then making an acute
> >>turn back towards the destination!
>
> (Matt O'Toole wrote more but I snipped it):
> > I get annoyed by the modern and ugly vs. retro choice we're often
presented
> > with, in every area of design. Sometimes it seems the design world
stopped
> > progressing about 30 years ago.
>
> Well there you go. Taste.
> There are guys who positively _like_ the look of a
> Technomic. I won't ever have an ugly faceplate stem on a
> bike of mine.
> What is one side of a bar to wrap? A minute? Two? For which
> I trade a sleek stem away? Geez. You look right at the darn
> thing all the time, too.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>