# Raising handlebars???



## altachris (Jul 10, 2007)

I have a 2002 Bianchi sl and the previous owner has "spacers" to raise bar level. Can I add more or loosen handlebars and raise more????????:mad2:


----------



## 10ae1203 (Jan 14, 2007)

Can you flip the stem so it angles up?


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

If the steerer is already cut, you will not be able to add more spacers. You will need to either flip the stem over so that it angles up, or if you have already done that, you will need to buy a new stem that is longer and has more rise.

Or you can get one of these:









This is a Zoom Heads Up Extension. It will extend your steerer up to three inches. It will look awful on your bike but it does get the bars up there. I found one on ebay once.

Or you can buy a new, uncut, fork with a chromoly steerer and add as many spacers as you like.


----------



## donwinil (Jun 12, 2007)

I wanted to raise my handle bars some myself. I was going to switch my stem from a 7 (110mm long) degree to a 17 degree stem. This should raise them about an inch.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Obligatory geezer anti-"Progress" rant*

This is where one of us old guys has to point out that "back in the quill stem days, raising or lowering the bars took a 6mm allen wrench and 10 seconds." I'm still looking for the advantage a threadless headset gives the average rider.


----------



## 10ae1203 (Jan 14, 2007)

Cory said:


> ..."back in the quill stem days, raising or lowering the bars took a 6mm allen wrench and 10 seconds." I'm still looking for the advantage a threadless headset gives the average rider.



Roger that. I'm back from a leave of absence, and boy did stuff get complicated.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

Cory said:


> This is where one of us old guys has to point out that "back in the quill stem days, raising or lowering the bars took a 6mm allen wrench and 10 seconds." I'm still looking for the advantage a threadless headset gives the average rider.


Also back in the day, you never, or hardly ever heard the term "saddle to bar drop". The bars were where you wanted them and made you comfortable, not where some highschool kid working in a LBS happened to cut the stem.


----------



## donwinil (Jun 12, 2007)

I guess my "professional" fit left something to be desired. My stem wasn't cut, but is more aggressive than I want at this time. The drop became about an inch worse when the height of the shoe clips was added. This wasn't a problem in the strap days.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

Yup. My LBS setup was more aggressive than I wanted but thankfully I didn't let them cut the steerer, so I was able to add a spacer. I'd go so far as to say never let 'em cut the steerer when you are first getting set up... ride for a few weeks (even months).


----------



## logbiter (Sep 14, 2005)

donwinil said:


> I wanted to raise my handle bars some myself. I was going to switch my stem from a 7 (110mm long) degree to a 17 degree stem. This should raise them about an inch.


this will also effectively shorten the reach by about .5".
if you want to maintain the same reach, you need to get longer & higher rise stem. of course a stem with different stack height complicates it a bit.
eg... the pic from a stem fit calculater I have on excel (which is attached in zip format for anyone who wants it).

there's a decent stem fit chart at http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Another geezer joins the rant parade.*



brianmcg said:


> Also back in the day, you never, or hardly ever heard the term "saddle to bar drop". The bars were where you wanted them and made you comfortable, not where some highschool kid working in a LBS happened to cut the stem.


I can't for the life of me see an advantage to threadless headsets that's enough to outweigh the ridiculous way they have complicated an important and formerly simple adjustment.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

JCavilia said:


> I can't for the life of me see an advantage to threadless headsets that's enough to outweigh the ridiculous way they have complicated an important and formerly simple adjustment.


No kidding. Can you imagine if that did that to, say, the seatpost.....













"Ahh, You maniacs, damn you all to hell!!!"


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

yeah but it sure is pretty even if it is damned to hell


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I’m a young guy, so take this with a grain of salt, but I found quill stem to feel a bit loosy-goosy and adjusting them was a pain. But honestly, how often does an average rider need to adjust their stem at all, let alone upwards? I’ve only ever lower it, and even then, vary rarely.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*"loosey-goosey"?*

Not sure what you mean, but a good quill stem doesn't flex or move any more than a threadless. As for adjustment, adjusting the height is the easiest thing in the world. If you found it a pain, something wasn't right. If you mean adjusting the headset bearings, I agree that takes a bit more touch (like old hubs) than the threadless setup. That problem could have been solved more elegantly without the crude chop-the-steerer height adjustment, but that's not how the industry went. I think there were briefly some threaded headsets with a locking splitring (like the new Campy rear hubs) before Aheadset took over.

As for WHY you'd adjust height, people used to do it more. You'd buy a bike, put the h-bar height where you think you wanted it, then play around with it to get more comfortable. With 3 inches or more adjustment available, and more important, being able to do it on the road with an allen wrench, you could take your time and get it how you want, with all this life-or-death, should I cut it or keep an ugly stack of spacers stuff, etc. 

It used to be common to begin the season (after winter layoff) with the bars higher than normal, and ride that way for early season conditioning. As you regained strength and flexibility, you could gradually lower the bars. That was useful sometimes. When aerobars came along, a quill stem made it pretty easy to adapt a road bike to an aggressive time trial position, by lowering the bar when you put the clip-ons on. That's a bigger chore now.

Anyway, I recognize that things have changed. Fortunately, all my bikes have quill stems, and there's a fair chance I'll never buy a new road bike. If I ever buy a custom bike, I'll have somebody make me a pretty threaded fork with a nice lugged crown.

So tell me again, what was the advantage of threadless? There must be one.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

*Another retro grouch weighs in...*

Possible big advantage: Manufacturers only have to make one fork length, do no threading, and leave it up to the bike stores to deal with the mess??? 

(But also no frames that have mysteriously lost their forks in the stockroom--an advantage for the bike shops...)

Seriously, despite Jobst Brandt's rant about how much better the mechanical advantage is of the external attachment (and ending the problem of stem plugs seizing), I find the annoyance factor and lack of adjustability much worse than dealing with the occasional stuck stem...

The only real advantage I can see is the ease of bar changes on the new stems--while testing new setups this is great. I'm sure for race mechanics it must be a godsend, too--Have your new bars with brifters and tape already to swap in,,,,just hook up cables and deal with broken levers, retaping etc at your leisure...

But couldn't we have had the new-style bar attachment on a quill stem & had the best of old and new?:idea:

(Although once you have carbon steerers, I suppose you need the external clamp area of the new stems for the whole thing to work, since an old-stlyle plug would have nothing solid enough to expand against...)


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

*Advantage: Manufacturers*

Like so many things in bicycling, (carbon rear ends come to mind), this change was driven by the needs of manufacturers, not riders. It started right after the introduction of suspension MTB forks. It allowed fork manufacturers to make one fork, and allowed frame manufacturers to buy and stock one fork, where before they would have had to deal with a separate size for every frame size. You can see how this is a huge advantage for them

Now, how to sell this idea to the riding public? Hmmm... Let's see.... AHA!!! "Lighter and stiffer!" That gets 'em every time.

Downsides: Stem height changes are harder, and require new parts. Bike shops got tired of having to cut steerer tubes on every bike they built up, so now the steerers come pre-cut, and too short for 90% of non-racing roadies. Most stock threadless road bikes are unrideable in the drops because of this. The brake hoods are now where the upper hook position used to be. Almost every threadless stem made is ugly. Your stem is now part of your headset adjustment.

Upsides: Carbon steerers, which of course can't be threaded. Other than that, and assuming top-quality parts both ways, maybe an ounce or two less weight. Headset overhauls are a bit easier. Stiffness isn't an issue. Once you've got enough strength, you've got enough stiffness (metals are like that). More won't help. So that's a draw.

Don't get me started on "integrated" headsets. Hey, my headset's pitted. I need a new frame!!

--Shannon


----------

