Naaaaaaah. Angled stems are for mountain bikes. I think threadless steerers are a dumb idea for road bikes, as they make adjustments in handlebar height a pain. To my personal aesthetic/geometric sense, the horizontal porion of the stem is more sightly when parallel to the top tube.
The only exception I make to this is for Moultons, which are a different subject altogether.
10-4,
Chris Beyer Lots of Opinions! Bloomfield, NJ
Brandon Ives wrote:
> You're defeating your own arguement. It doesn't matter what kind of
> steerer you use. If you have a threadless, which Grant won't build and is
> also "unclassic",and want to raise your stem you'd have to replace the
> fork anyway and you can cut the steerer any length you want
> anyway. Extending your headtube won't make any difference. Plus with all
> the variations of ahead style stems there's no need for the extended
> headtube with a threadless system. Maybe it's just me but I'd much rather
> have a stem that angles up a bit over headtube that's too long.
> enjoy,
> Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
>
> "Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would
> get done." Gil Scott-Heron
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Rich Rose wrote:
>
> > O.K., but.., if you prefer to use a threadless steerer and still would
> > like to get the bars a little higher the extended headtube seems like a
> > good alternative to all of those spacers, no? I did not use to like them
> > either (extended head tubes), until I saw a Richard Sachs with one.
> > Richard Rose (Toledo, Ohio)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org
> > [mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Ives
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:16 PM
> > To: Moos, Jerry
> > Cc: 'rocklube@adnc.com'; Philcycles@aol.com;
> > classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Subject: RE: Fight pickin' ... Re: [CR]Quiet again
> >
> > I'm with Brian 100% here. I think extended headtubes are freakin
> > stupid. I hate to burst people's bubbles but Grant is a marketing
> > person
> > NOT a framebuilder. Don't get me wrong I've met Grant twice, back in
> > the
> > mid-90's, and like the man, but too many people take his words as
> > gospel. He say's he's designing in a classic style, but I've never seen
> > any "classic" bikes with extended headtubes. So by definition
> > "classic" stems should work just fine on bikes that are tall enough. I
> > think the problem is he's designing for riding in the drops and as bars
> > have gotten deeper the stem has to rise. All my bars are level with the
> > seat or an inch above and I don't seem to need an extended headtube, I
> > also don't use deep bars. The answer is to raise the toptube and unless
> > you have a really high BB it shouldn't matter. Please let's not start a
> > whole Grant thread since it's one of the main reasons I left iBOB after
> > 4
> > years. We can discuss the bikes and the "real" builders, but until
> > Grant
> > picks up a file and torch let's just leave him out.
> > enjoy,
> > Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
> >
> > "Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything
> > would
> > get done." Gil Scott-Heron
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001, Moos, Jerry wrote:
> >
> > > Brian, what is your objection to extended headtubes? Obviously you
> > disagree
> > > with Grant Petersen on that subject. I think you made a comment at
> > Cirque
> > > that "there are better ways to achieve the objective", but I'm curious
> > what
> > > those ways are. One can obviously use a stem with a very long quill,
> > but
> > > that rules out a lot of classic stems, or one can slope the top tube
> > upward
> > > from seatube to headtube much more sharply than Rivendell does, but at
> > some
> > > point this causes the frame to look strange, like the team issue
> > Giants.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Jerry Moos
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian Baylis [mailto:rocklube@adnc.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:55 PM
> > > To: Philcycles@aol.com
> > > Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > > Subject: Re: Fight pickin' ... Re: [CR]Quiet again
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > To a degree I find this true for myself as well, although my customer
> > > bas has become only those that want what I specialize in. I never
> > build
> > > anything I don't want to build, like extended head tubes (have turned
> > > dwon lots of those requests) and so on. Good example of a frame not
> > > likely to be ordered is the frame in progress shown at the Cirque,
> > much
> > > of the details of which weren't shown in the photo on Dales' site. By
> > > the same token, I've built some rather elaborate frames for paying
> > > customers since the Wizard days.
> > >
> > > Brian Baylis
> > > La Mesa, CA
> > >
> > > P.S. Got Bruce looking into a Flying Scot for me. Not really sure what
> > > they are, but whatever it is, I'll take one.
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 5/23/01 8:10:01 AM, CYCLESTORE@aol.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > << The best work from custom work shops is commissioned by the
> > buyer, not
> > > the
> > > > builder. I would guess David Bohm and Richard Sachs best work came
> > from
> > > their
> > > > best customer (if you can define that) that was willing and able to
> > pay
> > > for
> > > > it. >>
> > > >
> > > > Oh, boy! I get to start one!
> > > > My best work-not highest quality but most elaborate and thought
> > out-is for
> > > > myself. My customers (with one exception) are not normally willing
> > to
> > > spend
> > > > the time and/or money for this sort of stuff. And I don't mean just
> > work
> > > time
> > > > but time spent defining just what you want. I've made nice bikes for
> > > > customers but not as nice as my own because I really know just what
> > I
> > > want.
> > > > And it's very hard to draw that sort of thing out of a person
> > because they
> > > > may not know the range of choices available to him and the education
> > > process
> > > > takes as long as building the bike. I like to do it but it's tough
> > to get
> > > a
> > > > customer to go along.
> > > > Phil Brown