Exactly! Talk about drinking the Kool Aid; the consumers all bought into the "differences as improvements", when, in fact, the differences are only differences. Most threadless stems are just ugly. I suppose some are a tad lighter, but this was never the reason for the new design. And what's all this about threadless being somehow stronger? Any of you snapped off a steerer at the stem lately?
I'm certainly not saying there isn't a place for threadless systems, but to declare them as any sort of a wholesale improvement is fantasy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Halasz To: RBW Owners Bunch Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: [RBW] Re: Sam Hillborne geometry is up at RBW site! Tried a bike this past year with a threadless stem; it was the largest sized, and I could *not* find a production stem that brought the bars within a cm of saddle height (cm to zero difference) that wasn't stretched too far, or just incredibly ugly. Even then, I couldn't get it to work. Maybe if the steerer hadn't been pre-cut. I am so much happier back with a Riv and Nitto stem. From Dave Moulton's Blog: "Richard Sachs said it best when he stated, “The threadless steerer was an answer to a problem that didn’t exist.” The old style quill stem (Left.) worked fine, it was elegant and easy to adjust up and down. Now it is obsolete, not because it didn’t work, but because forks with threadless steering columns are easier to mass produce." Chris Tucson, AZ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
