Forum menu
i think so as it adds up to 90 but maybe im being thick lol
Yes that would be my understanding (17 deg not being thick!)LOL 🙂
Where did you see that ? Stems are + or -ve from the horizontal.
you are holding it upside down
thanks mate thought so but thought id better check lol
dont care if its upside down so long as it gives me 17deg rise one of the ways round
so long as it gives me 17deg rise one of the ways round
(guess)
I don't think it will - 73 would suggest it rises at 73 deg from perpendicular to the line of the steerer, wouldn't it ?
ie, getting on for vertically up (if head angle 1s 70 or so) or down at about 45 or so
(/guess)
just checked the stem on another site and its refered to as as 73/107 and apparently the 107 gives 17deg rise. far too confusing lol
I don't think it will - 73 would suggest it rises at 73 deg from perpendicular to the line of the steerer, wouldn't it ?
No. Quite often stem angles are quoted as the difference from 90 deg. A 73 deg stem is a -17 deg stem using the the other naming convention.
What stem/mfr is it? Link?
No. Quite often stem angles are quoted as the difference from 90 deg. A 73 deg stem is a -17 deg stem using the the other naming convention.
FFS, 2 competing conventions, even for stem rise ?! 🙄
actually, just had a quick shufty on Parkers as I was going to suggest maybe roasdies had always done this, but they don't. Seems cinelli do this ^ way and "everyone" else (who says anything about angles - many don't, at least on Parker's site including some 200 quid ones) seems to use the other
[i]Seems cinelli do this ^ way and "everyone" else (who says anything about angles - many don't, at least on Parker's site including some 200 quid ones) seems to use the other[/i]
Ritchey and Pro use both 🙂
It's obviously an Italian 'thing' as ITM appear to do the same.
at least i was right lol thanks all