Aheadset - is it REALLY a benefit?

[ovlov440]

.....just putting the question out there. I was working at Evans/Bonthrone when Aheadset was introduced and at the time the general feeling was 'hey cool, neat etc etc' Well we were young and easily seduced by something new, as newer is better right?

Anyway, now I am not so sure. The old way separated the bearing and height adjustment completely, and gave you more control over the stem height (yes I know you can leave the steerer tube long and put spacers above it but how crap does that look :roll: )

Am I the only one who thinks that in this instance, the old way was better?

 

[nik_h]

Sadly I'm old enough to remember too, but in my opinion the Aheadset wins in pretty much every department. Simpler, lighter, better bearing loading, doesn't come loose, much easier to adjust (remember using headset spanners, cutting threaded steeers?), etc. It made threaded headsets obsolete overnight - even Shimano threw in the towel and stopped making MTB headsets.

Agree that too many spacers looks daft, but so does a quill stem sticking too far out of the headtube. Too many spacers is usually a lack of confidence to commit to a steerer length or simply the wrong sized frame to begin with.

Nik

 

[xxnick1975]

Agree with Volvo, can't see any benefit. Much prefer quill.

 

[Woz]

It's a sort of yes and no. They don't score big points on adjustability and it can be fairly long-winded to dial in a good position especially as there seems to be fewer and fewer variations of stem angles available these days. Don't get me started on the availability of polished stems either.

They made much more sense when you could change steerer tube on (expensive) suspension forks - so if you stuffed the frame up and replaced with a different head-tube length, or swapped headset with a different stack height, or swapped stem with a different stack height there was no potential big loss after you cut the steerer - this is where Nik's comment comes in ;-)

I think the introduction of Aheadset on road bikes was more from an economy point of view from the manufacturers and made things simple for bike shops rather than it being a technical necessity (like 1 1/8 forks too).

Aesthetically, it boils my blood to see logos upside down just so the stem will "work" flipped - for the love of god despite best efforts to make a lovely stem the end result is butt ugly compared to a nice Cinelli or Nitto quill stem.

 

[M-Power]

Quill systems look better IMO. All these ugly A-head system exposed bolts, stacked coin spacer rings, risk of alloy threadless steerer failure, ugly designs logos etc put me off. Nothing surpasses the timeless elegance of an old Cinelli quill stem on a road bike.

I have both systems and tbh I have stuck with the original quill stem. Only issue is its harder to find the parts. Never had any issues setting them up properly either.

The bicycle industry in general, probably driven by Shimano, keep changing things every 6 months to create new demand. Built in obsolescence is the new industry mantra.

 

[Mr.Toad]

Being a retro grouch I would also say that I prefer quill stems (on vintage bikes).

I'm pretty sure threadless systems developed as a easier (economical) system for manufacturers to size their forks and bikes, just like V-brakes who's original design was for rear suspension. Once the manufacturers saw how much time they could save on cable hangers, various rise and length of stems they pushed hard for the switch.

Besides all that I just think they look far better.

 

[Woz]

....
The bicycle industry in general, probably driven by Shimano, keep changing things every 6 months to create new demand. Built in obsolescence is the new industry mantra.

The irony that the Dura-Ace stem (made by Nitto) is arguably the most beautiful stem ever to grace the planet, yet Shimano didn't make a Aheadset stem or Aheadset headset.

 

[lewisfoto]

Threadless headset:

Advantages: can change the stem without altering the shifter and braking set up (a quill stem with a removable face plate shares this advantage); once headset is dialed in less likely to become loose while riding.

Disadvantages: changing the stem height requires re-adjusting headset as well; when changing the stem the whole front of the bike becomes disassembled which is cumbersome; the starnut is a crude invention that scars the inside of the steerer; if the steer tube is cut short raising the stem height requires buying a new stem or, even worse, getting one of those ugly extension things; if the steer is left long to allow for height adjustment you get the ugly knob on top of the stem as seen in photo above.

Steven

 

[Bats]

Aheadset is crap.

Theoretically, it can be lighter, but that's only when you're spending £££ on every component to become the ultimate weight weenie.

On a normal bike at a price mere mortals can afford, all you've done is make finely adjusting handlebar height impossible. Well done, you're oh so modern. Shame every slight tweak requires forking out £10 for a new stem.

Bloody stupid things that should never have been allowed to propagate.

 

[ovlov440]

so, despite what my wife says it's NOT just me then ;-)