# Negatives of threadless stem adapters



## fuzzwardo (Sep 16, 2014)

What drawbacks are there to using a threadless stem adapter? I recently got a Trek 370 and was thinking about going that direction instead of another quill stem but never have used one.


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

With some, not much height adjustment range. The images from a vendor sometimes don't show the minimum insertion marks. When you get the actual adapter, you could be surprised by that lack of range after you insert the adapter to the safe depth.

Small tip: If you do get a longer adapter and set it high, put some purely cosmetic spacers under the stem to hide that seriously ugly neck-down.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

I've been using one on my '96 Klein for about 8 years. Other than weight, it's fine.


----------



## fuzzwardo (Sep 16, 2014)

Thx. I wasn't sure if there were any safety concerns. I'm not concerned about weight, I m sure I have more than a few extra pounds that could be lost over some extra grams on a bike part. Lol


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

fuzzwardo said:


> Thx. I wasn't sure if there were any safety concerns...


Not that I've seen. Ironically, one of the reasons I ditched the old bar and quill stem was because of (likely irrational) safety concerns. I ride that old bike a lot and it's a single speed. Because of the relatively big gear (53:13), on hills I felt like I was going to rip the bar in half - again, irrational. The new (wider) stem and new (larger diameter) bar just feel (purely subjective) more secure.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

OldZaskar said:


> Not that I've seen. Ironically, one of the reasons I ditched the old bar and quill stem was because of (likely irrational) safety concerns.


For some reason that I can't figure out, there are quite a few otherwise knowledgeable people who will tell you that the adapter solution is "a bad thing" without giving you details of why this would be so. Perhaps it's a style consideration to them, who knows. I rode with a very short adapter in the fork steerer of an old 3.0 Cannondale for many years and never had a problem.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

OldZaskar said:


> Because of the relatively big gear (53:13).


A single speed with a 53/13 has a "relatively" big gear? Now THAT is irrational. 62 rpm at 20 mph. Death to your knees and very inefficient power delivery.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

wim said:


> For some reason that I can't figure out, there are quite a few otherwise knowledgeable people who will tell you that the adapter solution is "a bad thing" without giving you details of why this would be so. Perhaps it's a style consideration to them, who knows. I rode with a very short adapter in the fork steerer of an old 3.0 Cannondale for many years and never had a problem.


I think that the visceral reaction that some have to this is that we've all seen someone (not a "serious" cyclists) who has used one of these adapters to jack up their bar height to levels that seem ridiculous from an appearance perspective and patently unsafe in terms of structural integrity. One good hard yank would bend or snap the stem. There is a bike down on the bike rack at work that is truly scary - what looks like some sort of unholy lash-up consisting of a _pair_ of extensions (!!!) married to a set of riser bars that would not be out of place on an old Schwinn Sting Ray. Granted, it has been showing up in that configuration for well over a year...


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Gregory Taylor said:


> ..we've all seen someone (not a "serious" cyclists) who has used one of these adapters to jack up their bar height to levels that seem ridiculous from an appearance perspective and patently unsafe in terms of structural integrity.


Yes, I didn't think of that. I was only talking about relatively short adapters which insert into the steering tube and don't allow you to raise the bar much above slammed.

The adapters that allow you raise the bar to bizarre heights are indeed an abomination, especially since massively 'raisin' dem bars' often has the opposite effect on comfort than the intended one.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

arshak said:


> Weight.


Also, possibly, ugliness. But that's in the eye of the beholder. Some of us old curmudgeons think that all threadless stems are ugly compared to the sculpted lines of the nicer quill stems. But I think we're dying out (just like quill stems).


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

They are bad! You risk looking like a Fred. Other than that, it's like said above already. I did go back to a quill, as I found a gorgeous one on veloorange.com that worked very well with the bike.
The funny Fred part is how I sold a road bike, and saw it about 2 years later on Craigslist with a riser (not really a quill adapter, but nearly the same appearance), and the guy who bought it had raised the bars about 25cm above the saddle. Looked absolutely ridiculous!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

JCavilia said:


> But I think we're dying out (just like quill stems).


I sure hope correlation is not causation here. I hate to have my obit contain the phrase "...died on the exact date Nashbar sold the last quill stem left in its inventory."


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

wim said:


> I sure hope correlation is not causation here. I hate to have my obit contain the phrase "...died on the exact date Nashbar sold the last quill stem left in its inventory."


Nitto still makes quill stems. And Nitto stems are things of beauty, priced as things of utility.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Nitto still makes quill stems.


You're right, and thank God. I bought a bunch of Nitto stems from Grant Petersen when I still needed for my bicycles to have impeccable style and great elegance. For some reason, I've sunk into the state of Tektrostan and am perfectly happy if the part just works, even if barely.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

wim said:


> I sure hope correlation is not causation here. I hate to have my obit contain the phrase "...died on the exact date Nashbar sold the last quill stem left in its inventory."


 Then let's say "fading away" rather than "dying out." As QQQ notes, Nitto is still making pretty stems. And Dia-Compe' Ene line of retro-styled components includes this beauty, which Velo Orange sells for 70 bucks:







BTW, the current Nashbar catalog includes exactly one (ugly, MTB) quill stem.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

JCavilia said:


> Also, possibly, ugliness. But that's in the eye of the beholder. Some of us old curmudgeons think that all threadless stems are ugly compared to the sculpted lines of the nicer quill stems. But I think we're dying out (just like quill stems).


my sense of aesthetics must be obeyed, especially when it comes to bikes. the graceful lines of a nice quill are so pleasing to my eye...some bikes just need that look.

when building my Ti Paramount, I bought a Thomson threadless stem and an adapter...put them on the setup just looked grotesque...thick, heavy, industrial...blech.

the weight penalty (300g?) of the adapter was just insult to injury...never even installed bars, just immediately removed the threadless stuff and threw them in the parts box.

luckily, I was able to source a sweet DA hidden-bolt quill stem from Peter White, it was the perfect choice.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

JCavilia said:


> Then let's say "fading away" rather than "dying out.


Yes, like old soldiers.

Actually, your mentioning of the successful Velo Orange business venture reminded me of the fact that there's a resurgence of this old and beautiful stuff. I've been following Velouria's musings on a site called "Lovely Bicycle!" It's clear from the many comments to her articles that quite a few people still and again appreciate that old elegance and beauty and are willing to pay for it. It's another side of cycling altogether, and I'm glad it exists.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

wim said:


> With some, not much height adjustment range. The images from a vendor sometimes don't show the minimum insertion marks. When you get the actual adapter, you could be surprised by that lack of range after you insert the adapter to the safe depth.
> 
> Small tip: If you do get a longer adapter and set it high, put some purely cosmetic spacers under the stem to hide that seriously ugly neck-down.


If you can slam the stem, the adapter/stem looks pretty good, even with a positive rise.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

Kerry Irons said:


> A single speed with a 53/13 has a "relatively" big gear? Now THAT is irrational. 62 rpm at 20 mph. Death to your knees and very inefficient power delivery.


Ha - it was the 62 rpm bit that made me reread the posts. Typo: I'm running a 53/15 - not 13. For the rides I'm doing - 30-55 miles at 21ish pace, a lower (by a tooth) was ideal... except for the fast flats. I've been on the 53/15 for a year or more and love it for the rolling around Atlanta.

I disagree that an adapter is "ugly"... 'cause it's largely invisible.


----------



## BigPoser (Jan 11, 2013)

There really isn't that much of a weight penalty either. Have you weighed a quill stem? They aren't exactly light. You also have a limited selection of bars that are 26mm, so sometimes going with a threadless adapter is the better way to go if you want some variety.


----------

