Which is to say, headsets very seldom need to be adjusted. Which indeed
is Hugh's point: you may size time adjusting, but since you do it so
infrequently in the big picture the savings are inconsequential.
It's the same thing with coding: you optimize code in an inner loop,
that executes a lot, not code that executes only once each time the
program runs.
On 4/15/19 10:12 AM, Patrick Moore wrote:
Frequency? All the threadless headsets I've owned kept their
adjustment at least as well as all the threaded ones I've used; and
setting pre-load is far easier than setting bearing load on a threaded
system and keeping it set while tightening the locknut.
Patrick: threadless systems certainly have their disadvantages --
largely that it's harder to adjust bar height -- but overall they are
a heck of a lot easier to adjust than threaded ones.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:49 PM hugh flynn <hugfly...@gmail.com
<mailto:hugfly...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The ease of adjustment for threadless stems is indeed so great
that it is astounding how hard it can be to describe properly...
That said, the gains offered by simplicity are offset by the
frequency with which one has to do it. For all the claimed
complexity of threaded headset adjustmemt, one doesn't have to
fiddle with headset preload when changing or adjusting a quill stem.
Hugh "net gain is null" Flynn
Newburyport, MA
--
--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
