RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


More on Headtube extensions, Bike Fit 2000 revisited again!(9 posts)

More on Headtube extensions, Bike Fit 2000 revisited again!Spunout
Mar 24, 2003 4:51 AM
Even Mario has a custom route to omit his spacer stack.
re: More on Headtube extensions, Bike Fit 2000 revisited again!speedisgood
Mar 24, 2003 6:44 AM
There's something I like about polished aluminum--much better than the tiger stripe motif IMO. I guess if Cipo wants to change his position, he'll just call the factory and they'll make him another one. Didn't he have like 27 frames built before he was satisfied?

Also, is that a Reynolds fork?
why isn't this the standard?Frith
Mar 24, 2003 6:59 AM
Can someone tell me why all manufacs don't do this seemingly simple adjustment to their frame builds. In my opinion the question of what looks better riser vs spacers vs quill becomes moot when extended headtubes enter the picture. Will we eventually see more of these or will it always be a custom option/factory rarity.
I think this will become the norm. Fit has changed dueSpunout
Mar 24, 2003 7:09 AM
to the elimination of threaded headsets. With carbon steer tubes and integrated headsets, an extended head tube to make up for what was lost is the answer.

Spacers are not a permanent solution. They just look like a fix for a bad-fitting bike.
AgreeMR_GRUMPY
Mar 24, 2003 7:15 AM
I think that more manufactures will offer extended head tubes to eliminate the spacer problem.
I think this will become the norm. Fit has changed dueRJF
Mar 24, 2003 7:24 AM
I don't think spacers should be thought of as "a fix for a bad-fitting bike" as much as they should be considered "a fix for the fact that headsets and stems changed but bike builders didn't."

While every person and bike is different and there are no hard and fast rules, etc., I'd say that if you have less than 2 cm of spacers on your bike, and no headtube extension or riser stem,, then the frame is in a lot of cases too big for you.
Conversely,Spunout
Mar 24, 2003 7:36 AM
If a bike has more than 2 cm of spacers, the bike is too small!

Looking at fit, Italian geometry seems to be working for alot more people, fitting to the top tube and head tube height.
Think about it...PsyDoc
Mar 24, 2003 10:42 AM
...you are basically saying that ANYONE who is riding a threaded system and has more than 1.75" of quill stem showing. I think that would mean that 80-90% of those riding with a threaded system are riding bikes that are too small. You need to keep in mind an individual's flexibility (potential back problems, e.g., fused vertebrates, blown discs, etc.) and the type of rider they are as well as the type of riding they do. I would argue that people riding on bikes with more spacers than allowed by the fork manufacturer, in the case of carbon forks, probably would be better suited on a custom bike.
Headtube extensions - depends once againFez
Mar 24, 2003 9:31 AM
The first phase of headtube extensions came around to address the issue of reduced stack height of the threadless vs threaded headset.

Personally, I think an alloy steerer and 2cm of spacers is a stiffer and cleaner look than an running an equivalent amount of quill to maintain the same height. Riding around with extended quill scares me. At least with threadless alloy steerers, you know the steertube is connected all the way down to the fork crown.

For an equivalent height, nobody gets that excited about a few extra cms of quill, but lots of folks get excited about a few extra cms of threadless spacers. Sounds like a stupid and futile debate to me.

And now that the integrated/internal headsets are used, the extension is further offset by a near zero stack height. So look carefully before you determine whether that headtube extension really is an extension or if it is just making up for reduced stack height.