Talk:Stem (bicycle part)

Merge?

It has been suggested (by AndrewDressel on 24 December 2006) that this article or section be merged with handlebar.

I would vote against a merge. Gam3 18:24, 24 December 2006

Okay, withdrawn. -AndrewDressel 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the stem extension

Why does the stem extend forward, ahead of the steerer tube? Couldn't the handlebars mount directly above the steerer tube? Is it a stability issue? This is not explained in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmi121 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question! Maikel (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

I think that the pictures in this article could be improved, keeping in mind readers who do not know what stems are. The stem in the first picture (Specialized bike) is partially hidden and could be closer up. The second picture seems to be of the moustache handlebars rather than the stem - it's unclear what type of stem it is, and the stem is partially out of the frame. The third picture is the best angle of all three but the extra stuff on the bars (computer and not sure what else) is somewhat distracting, and the caption could be improved - the bike model is irrelevant - it is just a threadless stem. At least, the two varieties of stems, threadless and quill, should be shown in the article. RosinDebow 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited the caption on the picture of the mountain bike stem, and propose this be the only picture of a threadless stem in the article (unless a better one is available) because of issues noted above. On review, the stem in the first pic (Specialized bike) is not hidden as I said before, but it's unclear because of the angle and distance to an uninformed reader what the stem is and what parts it is connecting. RosinDebow 13:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some pictures of quill stems. -AndrewDressel 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

cross compatibility of un threaded steer tubes

I was wondering why it now says "As such, un-threaded forks may be more easily interchanged." I'd put "are more cross compatible." And I'm tempted to change it back to that, or rather change it to "are more cross compatible than threaded forks." As that seems to me to be true, and more clear. (as it stands it's completely true, but more ambiguous.) Threaded steer tubes are more length dependent. Not to say that threadless are universal, but they are way more flexible, and will fit on bikes with a far wider range of head tube lengths than threaded. Does that sound reasonable?--Keithonearth (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "cross compatible" means, except from context. "More easily interchanged" seems clear to me. In any case, I question if the point is even correct. Threadless steer tubes are usually cut to length as well, to position the handlebars where the rider wants them. A fork from a 49 cm frame is unlikely to fit on a 59 cm frame, threadless or not. A fork from a 59 cm frame will fit on a 49 cm frame, and will most likely need to be cut, threadless or not. The threaded steer tube may need to have its threads extended, which is only slightly more complicated for a shop than shortening the tube. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of many things in this world, but I am sure that it's way more complicated (shop or home) to re-size a threaded steer tube. In the case of threadless, you have spacers that allow many cm of adjustment, potentially even 10 cm. In the case of threaded, you have mm to work with, potentially one cm at the top end, if you put in a spacer with a threaded HS (unprofessional, and ugly). If you need to shorten a un-threaded steer tube all you need is a hacksaw and a file (and a saw guide in a shop), if you need to cut a threaded one you'll need that and a multi-hundred dollar tool for chasing the threads or re-threading a the steer tube. Maybe you worked at nicer shops than me, but where I've worked we were explicitly not allowed to cut new threads, due to the wear on the tool, and the labour involved. Oh, and "more cross compatible", differs from "more easily interchanged" in that it's not just less labour, but if the steer tube is shorter than ideal, with threaded you're stuck, with threadless there's a good chance that if you take out some/all spacers it's still workable. What do you say?--Keithonearth (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to a 3rd edit, that (I think) takes into account both our points. I hope that's ok with you Andrew.--Keithonearth (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've, more or less, reverted my edit again. While not the most important point, I don't understand why you have deleted the fact that treadless stems are less dependant on steer tube length than threaded. I mean, I don't want to get in an edit war (especially with someone who does as much great work on bike articles as you do) but I'd appreciate it if you could discuss let me know why my edit (especially my attempt at putting up both our points) is unacceptable.--Keithonearth (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think I had "deleted the fact that treadless stems are less dependant on steer tube length than threaded." It still says "Un-threaded forks often require less labor to swap than threaded." I don't see the expression "less dependant on steer tube length than threaded" in your original text. I removed "cross compatible" because its meaning is unclear to me, as I've said before. It sounds like marketing jargon. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear from the above discussion that I was referring to the cumbersome "less dependant on steer tube length than threaded" with the more concise "cross compatible". You can't always just throw more labour at a threaded steer tube to make it fit. (One of my favourite lines is "I've cut this 3 times and it's still too short") If a threaded steer tube is too short there's nothing you can do. If a threaded is too short you can often take out some spacers, sub-optimal, but workable, aka more cross compatible. Your edit summary only says "shorten text" (though I've been guilty of not being clear in my summaries more than once, I know), can you think of a way to make "less dependant on steer tube length than threaded" short enough to be acceptable? Incidentally I don't think "cross compatible" sounds like marketing jargon, if fact I can't think of once hearing compatibility being touted as a benefit. (Though I value it greatly in my bikes.)--Keithonearth (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Expander nut

I came here to find out how an expander nut works. I don't understand the concept. Can someone add that info to this page, or to a new linked page? 82.69.100.180 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to answer your question. Part of the problem might be that the available picture does not show the slits in the stem to allow expansion by the cone-shaped nut. The image posted by Sheldon Brown on his web site here does a better job of showing at least one of the slits. I cannot find a similar image on the commons, unfortunately. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why quill?

Why is it called a quill stem? I don't see similarity between a quill and this type of stem. Thank you. Maikel (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)