[Closed] why such long stems?

It's just the way road bikes are..

It's spring.

Stems grow in the spring.

[img] [/img]

It's just the way road bikes are..

not only roadbikes.

If we're talking road bikes, surely you need a size down if you need shorter than 100mm.

No....I don't know why you kick tyres of bikes.Do you hate bikes? Do you mistake tyres for footballs?

You need to find an Enduroo shop. They'll all be 35mm there 😉

If we're talking road bikes, surely you need a size down if you need shorter than 100mm.

at 6ft 4''................ 😆

anyone know why?

It's probably Brexit.

All of them are you sure, what were you looking at?

However, XC bikes will still have stems of that length in the bigger bike sizes.

Longer stems will make the bike faster - in the same way that 29" wheels will 🙄

It's a while since I've seen a chip on a shoulder dragged so incongruously from one thread to another, Jag 🙂

I'm guessing that the geometry of the bikes is based around longer stems as they're likely to be XC or Gravel bikes.

I'm guessing that the geometry of the bikes is based around longer stems as they're likely to be XC or Gravel bikes.

touring.

Surely a long stem is actually desirable on a touring bike? A short stem is going to lead to more twitchy steering.

+1

Perfectly normal - especially for the larger rider.

longer stem to me means head down rather than heads up riding.
and rememeber, I am well over 6ft tall.......... 😆

Surely a long stem is actually desirable on a touring bike? A short stem is going to lead to more twitchy steering.

Depends on the bike, how loaded it is etc. Most touring bikes have shorter/more upright stems (relatively to racing bikes) so you can sit up and see where you're going. But you don't want to achieve that with a smaller frame as you want the long wheelbase for stability once weighed down with panniers.

e.g Surly Trucker.
[img] [/img]

and that is perfect ^^

It's a while since I've seen a chip on a shoulder dragged so incongruously from one thread to another, Jag

Why Thank You Sir 😆 8)

target market? existing market is small and knows what works, target market is people with a couple of quality road bikes (winter and best) that need?/want a bike to ride some rougher stuff and stop off at a pub overnight - long stems look sort of OK, angled short stems says hybrid=no

fashion then really. not function.

Shorter stems have tendency to speed up the handling (geometry depending) that isn't necessarily desirable on a bike to be ridden all day. Also pushing more weight onto your butt isn't always desirable either. End of the day that's why we have different bikes for different jobs.

[quote=dragon ]Shorter stems have tendency to speed up the handling (geometry depending) that isn't necessarily desirable on a bike to be ridden all day. Also pushing more weight onto your butt isn't always desirable either. End of the day that's why we have different bikes for different jobs.

That. Different shaped bikes for different functions. Longer, lower can also mean faster, easier (less aero drag). It's hardly fashion-led given it's been that way since, like, forever.

ton - Member
fashion then really. not function.

we are talking cycling ? 🙄

Old bikes had REALLY steep head angles; so longer stems helped calm down the twitchiness.

What length stems do you think road bikes should come with?

Anything under 100mm is [b]short[/b] innit?

Did you ask the shop if they'd swap the stem for you chosen length?

What chakaping said was more my point, 90-100mm (like the Trucker) is short by normal roadbike standards (110-120mm).

It's short by MTB standards historically too, I remember buying a 'short' 90mm stem for my Switchback!

I hope those bikes with short stems have had a rear tyre pressure boost, due to more weight over the rear. 😉

Without messing about, finding something to use as an equal height platform for one wheel while I have bathroom scales under the other to judge weight balance, ive been guestimating at 40% weight over the front of my Wazoo since swapping the default 80mm for a 35mm.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the front is only carrying ~30% of the weight.

Same goes for my relatively high front ended Cube Attain road bike, I'm guessing at 45% front wheel load when I'm on the very comfortably high drops, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is too high as well.

You're looking at road bikes, keeping all things in reasonable proportion 100mm isn't by any stretch long.

There might be some fashion (well, tradition really) in it, but do you really need or want a wheelbase that's 50mm (or 65mm if you wanna be properly enduro tourer) longer and the associated issues putting things in cars and sheds?

somewhere between 60mm to 80mm with a bit of rise suits my old back.

Well buy a shorter frame (as long as the HT isn't shorter) or fit a 60-80mm stem then...

somewhere between 60mm to 80mm with a bit of rise suits my old back.

That's entirely dependant on frame size though isn't it, if what you're actually saying is that most bikes 'your size' need a shorter stem for you to be comfortable then either you're looking at the wrong size bikes or the issue is one of personal fit being outside the norm/average, in which case the retailer will probably be more than happy to help you adjust to suit.

At your height i'd expect a long stem, 100mm is probably at the short end of stems for +6ft on a road bike...and it's not exactly a big deal to swap if you need to.

TLDR : stop whinging, it's your reach that's too short not the stem being too long 😉

636mm toptube length is quite long....no?

Yes, but isn't that what people are saying? 🙂

My tourer has a 610mm top tube and a 120mm stem, which—while longer than your setup—is probably a more "normal" balance of top tube and stem than 636mm/80mm. Whatever suits you is fine, but 100mm stems on tourers, especially in large sizes, doesn't seem remarkably long to me.

I read recently, and it makes some sense, that it stems (natch) from aero requirements - a longer stem puts the front wheel closer to the bb and gives a smaller "box" - all other things being equal. Meaning you can get your body (the big wind breaker bit) closer to the rider in front which is advantageous in a bunch situation.

That and that's how they've always done it of course and we all know that roadies are progress-phobic. 😉

Meaning you can get your body (the big wind breaker bit) closer to the rider in front which is advantageous in a bunch situation.

This may be true but marginal and if it was for racing, you'd want a great big long rear end to be able to breakaway from the bunch a bit easier/give the guy behind a harder time (unless you were a domestic).

My tourer has a 610mm top tube and a 120mm stem, which—while longer than your setup—is probably a more "normal" balance of top tube and stem than 636mm/80mm. Whatever suits you is fine, but 100mm stems on tourers, especially in large sizes, doesn't seem remarkably long to me.

636mm toptube and 100mm stem make 29''.
that is huge in anyones terms. you will struggle to find csomeone who rides such a size bike.

 

This may be true but marginal and if it was for racing, you'd want a great big long rear end to be able to breakaway from the bunch a bit easier/give the guy behind a harder time (unless you were a domestic).

It isn't marginal at all, getting that much closer has a significant benefit in slipstreaming. And the guy behind you is helping you with aero (reducing the low pressure area directly behind you) so there's no sense forcing them further away.

636mm toptube and 100mm stem make 29''.
that is huge in anyones terms. you will struggle to find csomeone who rides such a size bike.

I've just built a bike with a 620mm top tube and 140mm stem 🙂

But anyway, that wasn't my point. What I meant was that for your reach of about 71cm, most people would get there with something like a 60cm top tube and 11cm stem.

100mm stems aren't large by any means. A 636mm top tube, however (assuming we're talking drop bar bikes), is way off the scale of nearly all off-the-shelf geometry charts. 😉

[quote=chiefgrooveguru ]And the guy behind you is helping you with aero (reducing the low pressure area directly behind you) so there's no sense forcing them further away.

Aye, but you're helping them [i]a lot[/i] more than they're helping you so it would still make sense to be able to drop them.

100mm stems aren't large by any means. A 636mm top tube, however (assuming we're talking drop bar bikes), is way off the scale of nearly all off-the-shelf geometry charts.

xl Genesis tour de fer.

Yeah, I realise it's obviously on at least one geometry chart 😉 Surly and Soma both go that long, too, IIRC. But it's pretty uncommon and it's right up one end of the available range. Whereas a 10cm stem is very common and you can easily get one 40% longer.

Most people would expect to find such a long frame fitted with a rather longer stem than 80mm. That's not too say it's not right for you, it just kind of explains why 100mm stems on medium-to-large touring bikes isn't remotely surprising 😉

i have got a whole load of stems, ranging from 50mm right up to 130mm and in loads of rises.
gonna start on the 65mm and see if i can stretch my back up to 100mm.

cheers Bez. 😀

Hey, I'm not suggesting you should change position just because some other bike has a different stem on it 🙂

I am using a 90mm stem but at 5'10" I am towards the lower end of recommended sizing for my size L frame and I am a bit more leg than torso... The fit of the bike is good for me like this, so I can live with a bike that doesn't quite conform to the [i]rules[/i].

Use Stack and Reach to make meaningful comparisons. My (massive, unrideable by most anyone else) Soma ES has a 618mm Effective Top Tube and I'm pretty sure you'd not even be able to throw a leg over that.

Most of the research has been done for you - and you're not that tall:

[url= http://www.cyclingabout.com/list-of-xxl-xxxl-bikes-for-tall-cyclists-62-63-64cm/ ]http://www.cyclingabout.com/list-of-xxl-xxxl-bikes-for-tall-cyclists-62-63-64cm/[/url]

has a 618mm Effective Top Tube

so the genesis tour de fer has a longer toptube than your bike then?
and mated with a 100mm stem the bike is very long then?
so does a bike with such a long toptube need a long stem?

has a 618mm Effective Top Tube

so the genesis tour de fer has a longer toptube than your bike then?

The Genesis geo simply states 'Horizontal Toptube Length' but the graphic is a bit weird so who knows where is [i]actually[/i] measured from (since that horizontal distance will change a little depending where you measure due to difference in seat and headtube angle).

Look at the angles and the reach measurement too, for example your TDF XL is only 20mm longer than the L in reach, but 32mm longer in 'Horizontal Toptube Length', thats because the seat angle is slacker, there's more to geometry than just a published number for 'top tube'

also, this will make you chuckle, the geo chart for the TDF lists 100mm stem for ALL sizes, so actually the small ones have long stems for their size, and the large ones have short stems!

Stem length isn't *just* about fit either, its about handling, not 'steering' as such but weight distribution, if you whack a short stem on a long bike to sort fit, you move a significant portion of weight back, you might not notice (or will get used to) any 'twitchiness' but you might notice loss of front end grip and changes in handling overall, admittedly not as important on a tourer compared to a road bike but just highlighting the point, its a complicated game bike fit 😉

My AWOL was similar in that the TT measurements are 'long' for a drop bar bike, but I had to fit a longer stem (100mm vs 80mm) to standard to get it to fit properly, and I couldn't size up as the seat tube would have been too long, and even with the longer stem it's still very short and upright compared to my road bikes.

Anyway, stop worrying about it and just put on whatever stem makes you comfy!

Anyway, stop worrying about it and just put on whatever stem makes you comfy!

oh i have mate. just wondered about stem lengths on bikes overall.
dont get me started on them mondraker things....... 😆

so the genesis tour de fer has a longer toptube than your bike then?

Like I said, use Stack and Reach and then you can compare bikes - but the Tour de Fer does seem to be a long bike, but that seems fashionable for gravel bikes.

But stack and reach—certainly the latter—are more meaningful for MTB than they are for road. (Touring being somewhere in between depending on preference.) They tell you a lot about the relationship between the bottom bracket and the top of the head tube but they completely ignore the position of the saddle. And since on a road bike you're seated nearly all the time, that's not helpful.

For instance, I need a long saddle-to-bar reach and I also need the saddle a good way behind the BB. That doesn't actually result in a high reach value on the geometry charts, because it demands a slack seat angle, which reduces reach for the same body position when seated.

Reach actually tells me pretty much nothing at all. IME, more often than not a large reach is the combination of a not-very-long top tube and a steep seat angle, both of which are precisely what I [i]don't[/i] want.

Reach actually tells me pretty much nothing at all. IME, more often than not a large reach is the combination of a not-very-long top tube and a steep seat angle, both of which are precisely what I don't want.

Most of the cycling industry (eg Cervelo), specifically tri and road, disagree with you.
If you have a particularly out of proportion femur length I could see why you need your seat an unusually long way behind the BB. I have very long legs and have never failed to get my knee over the pedal spindle through saddle adjustment alone on any bike (that fits me and that I'm not trying to force a fit) without a layback seatpost. Seat tube angle is part of it, but stack and reach are prime.

The Genesis Tour de Fer is a bit of an oddity. It was a flat bar bike last year but this year they have fitted drops without changing the frames so they are really long, especially the larger sizes.

The Genesis Tour de Fer is a bit of an oddity. It was a flat bar bike last year but this year they have fitted drops without changing the frames so they are really long, especially the larger sizes.

thus confirming that I was right all along.......... 😆

it is too long with a 100mm stem. I tried it earlier. now fitted with a 70mm 17degree rise. we will see. 😀

If you have a particularly out of proportion femur length I could see why you need your seat an unusually long way behind the BB.

I'm not sure. But I do seem to have quite a rearward position: 72-72.5deg seat angles, 20-30mm layback posts, and the saddle pushed right to the back (or close, depending on the angle/layback combination).

I'm guessing I'm not alone. I'm no expert on riding position but some others (including folk who work in bike shops and presumably fit plenty of people to bikes) on the CTC forum have remarked that no-one ever has a problem getting their saddle far enough forward, but it's not uncommon to be unable to get it far enough back (it seems that a more rearward position tends to be preferred by distance riders, a more forward one by speedier riders).

For anyone in the same position, reach isn't helpful, as it won't tell you whether you can get enough saddle-to-bar reach. (And even to get pedal-to-bar reach, to gauge out-of-the-saddle comfort, you still need to do some maths to get the third side of the reach-and-stack triangle.)

Granted, if you can always get your seat in the right position regardless of seat angle—whether due to riding style or body shape—then it's no big deal.

I guess that's the majority and reach makes sense for most people; it just feels weird to me to be unable to envisage where the saddle will (or perhaps more pertinently, won't) end up, and I'm probably stuck in my ways of 25 years of looking at geometry sheets where top tube is the most critical dimension for me.

thus confirming that I was right all along..........it is too long with a 100mm stem.

I'd say it confirms that everyone else was right all along: you've ended up with a top tube that's longer than it should be 🙂

(It doesn't matter. As long as you have a riding position you're comfortable with and handling you like, then it's all good. But fundamentally it's not normal design to do what Genesis have done and just swap flat bars for drops: the normal approach when doing that is to shorten the top tube.)

The problem is when people fixate on A measurement, TT, reach, stack, angles whatever they tell you noting in isolation, you have to look at ALL the figures and understand how they interact on any given frame - i know you do Bez but it's a general point 😉

I also lament the steep seat angles on a lot of road frames, especially on the smaller sizes which they seem to do to artificially 'shorten" the TT measurement, grrrrr

I am away to france for a nice long tour, so hopefully it will prove comfy. cheers Bez, and all. 😀

I'm not sure why it's taken me until now to realise that I should simply have been trying to sell you my adjustable stem 😉

joking aside, I was thinking about trying one.

what is it?

It's for old 25.4mm bars, probably only any use as a paperweight these days 😉

Go, on tell us, what was wrong with the Ogre?

🙂

Go, on tell us, what was wrong with the Ogre?

nothing at all.
thing is that i cant really ride offroad now with any great success, so i have entered a few audax rides. and a road bike is a no go.
so i thought i would treat myself to a nice new tourer that is suitable for audax, and touring.
it is built a fair bit lighter than the ogre. so with a change of tyres, it should be half nimble.