Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: Stubby Stems

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815

    Stubby Stems

    I'm talking about 70mm reach and under stems.

    This trend has been building for a while and I still haven't jumped on. I actually have a couple of short stems laying around so I guess I'll have to throw one on a bike and see for myself how it rides.

    But up until now I haven't done so because I assume that it's going to make the bike climb poorly and steer too quickly. At least on the steep stuff. Seems like it would make for a light front end that didn't track as well.

    I just read through most of that Chromag thread and noticed that they seem to be all about really short stems and that vid of the guy riding one that starts with gong across the rr tracks is certainly running a short stem. But then basically the whole video only shows him going down stuff. Which could be said of 90% of the videos out there. They are almost always about going down rather than up. My point being that maybe people really like going down hills a lot more than going up so that is what they build for and then suffer the ups.

    Personally I like going down hills too but my favorite thing to do on a mountain bike is cleaning a really technical super steep climb that is hard enough that you don't always make it or at least it takes a few tries the first time until you get it dialed, but you are always on the edge of not making it unless you are really on.

    Also on that same Chromag thread one guy said he wanted a long top tube so he could run a short stem. Why is this better than a normal top tube and a normal stem? Or is that just one opinion?

    Then the other thought is that bike trends emerge and grow at times like fashion. Everybody starts buying something because everybody else is buying the same thing and it becomes a given where there really isn't much behind the decision other than Johnie has one and he is a good rider so I want one too. Sometimes function and fashion go hand in hand because it really seems to be a better way to go. Like tubeless or wider bars.

    So for those who have thought their decision through and have tried different stem lengths and have settled on a short stem as their final choice how did you arrive at this decision and how does it work overall, not just on the way down?
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    I'm talking about 70mm reach and under stems.

    ... my favorite thing to do on a mountain bike is cleaning a really technical super steep climb that is hard enough that you don't always make it or at least it takes a few tries the first time until you get it dialed, but you are always on the edge of not making it unless you are really on.

    So for those who have thought their decision through and have tried different stem lengths and have settled on a short stem as their final choice how did you arrive at this decision and how does it work overall, not just on the way down?
    I had always run a 110mm stem and then about 4 years ago I started to tackle steep, rougher descents and it was pretty clear that a short stem would help, however I did not want to compromise too much because I really enjoy the technical ups. I bought a cheap 50mm, 70mm and 90mm stem to see what worked best for me. I found that with a 70mm stem my technical ups and downs both improved. On truly technical climbs a short stem allows you to lift the front over trail obstacles much easier than the 110mm stem does.

  3. #3
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    A lot of the short stem/longer top tube thing is about weight distribution. Getting your weight back over the rear tire more has obvious benefits for gravity oriented stuff.

    In 29"ers, it allows for a more easily lofted front end, if that is important to you. One thing that a short stem will also do is it will un-weight your front wheel slightly, so going too short may be a detriment on an XC/trail bike used primarily for single track.

    Slack head angles, (sub 70 degrees), long travel forks, and down hill oriented bikes will be best served by a short, stubby stem. Some 29"ers may also benefit from that if the riding style prefers an easily lofted front end, otherwise a bit longer stem would be better for most trail riders.

    That's all a generalization, and exceptions exist, but that's how I understand it.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AZTtripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    The only time I ever had a real bike fitting when buying new was for a Blur in the end 90 was the right length for that bike.

    When I built up my first 29r I choose to try a 60 it just looked right for the bike. I liked it right away. I have it inverted on my Gunnar and I am quite happy with the set up.

    I can climb fine I feel it's all about getting the right balance. Moving the body back or forward at the right time traction vs getting the front wheel up and over something and then getting my body weight forward once the front wheel is up.

    And I feel much more confident on drops, and that used to be a weak point for me.
    Singin' I love hike a bike!!!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,184
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    .... Sometimes function and fashion go hand in hand because it really seems to be a better way to go. Like tubeless or wider bars.

    So for those who have thought their decision through and have tried different stem lengths and have settled on a short stem as their final choice how did you arrive at this decision and how does it work overall, not just on the way down?
    It would appear that you have, like many 29" riders, decided that wider bars work better because of the greater leverage for the bigger front wheel. If you are using a wider bar, you will automatically be leaning slightly forward. To compensate and to get your upper body in the position you like a shorter stem is required.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  6. #6
    Not smart enough to shift
    Reputation: onlyontwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    404
    I love the effect that a shorter stem has on my bikes. I actually put a short (read sub 90mm) on my first 29er and first single speed. It was a 75mm stem and it just made the bike some alive. Since then all of my 29ers have had around a 70mm stem. My custom built Black Cat wears a 70mm stem and 750mm wide bars. It is a fantastic upgrade in my opinion. 29ers like to be leaned more than steered per say, so the short stem helps quicken them up. Everyone that I know that thought 29ers in general were slow handling and not playful feeling changed their tune after trying a short stem.

    Just my $.02.

    Cheers,
    Andy

  7. #7
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,336
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    I just read through most of that Chromag thread and noticed that they seem to be all about really short stems and that vid of the guy riding one that starts with gong across the rr tracks is certainly running a short stem.
    Chromags rep is based on winning events like the Samurai of SIngletrack races- 10k' up to FR descent stage races, 2-3 days of that. Crazy to do that much climbing in a day with a 50mm stem? Even crazier to tackle some of those FR descents on a hardtail!

    Riders like that demonstrate that climbing ability is all about technical skill and fitness. Stem length has little to do with it.

    I'm running short stems & wide bars on all my mountain bikes and totally prefer the handling. It did take me a while (many years ago) to adjust- you rely more on core strength to hold your torso up, less leaning on the bars. No problem on tech climbs.

    Just my .02c

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pushinpixels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    253
    I went from a 90mm to 70mm stem on my Tallboy. I prefer the 70mm in almost every way, better stability, agility, smoothness and control. It just feels like I can manhandle technical trails a little easier.

    However, I have to endure more saddle rape to make it up climbs that were easier with a 90mm stem.

  9. #9
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Ronnie and FM are right, bar and stem have to be considered together and have less to do with climbing than technique and fitness do.

    A wide bar on a long stem feels pretty awful to me, a narrow bar with a short stem is just as bad. So just switching one will likely not put you in the sweet spot.

    Narrow bars and long stems obviously work since we have been locked to them since the early 90s, but short stems and wide bars are being discovered as having the same correct feel but with much more leverage over the front wheel and better handling going down.

    Going shorter and wider might not work on your current frame size. It could cramp the cockpit and put you over the back of the bike, which will have other repercussions. I have gone from Med to Large frames now that I am fully committed to short and wide.

    JMH

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    177
    I have always used sub 70mm stem on my DH bikes, but then got into XC and used 120mm stems and narrow flat bars for years... For the first time ever I have gone for a wide Salsa Pro Moto with 17deg sweep which feels great. The problem is my 100mm stem is too short as my hands are almost in line with the steerer, effectively a direct mount MX stem! The bike fits me, but I'm not too sure how to get around this, I don't want to put a 130mm stem on to get my hands in the right place. Luckily my On-one has a long TT, but I think Ritcheys 10D might be the solution. What do you guys run with your big sweep bars?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH

    Going shorter and wider might not work on your current frame size. It could cramp the cockpit and put you over the back of the bike, which will have other repercussions. I have gone from Med to Large frames now that I am fully committed to short and wide.

    JMH
    That was kind of what I was thinking. I usually ride medium frames at 5 10. I did buy a large Canfield Jedi because I wanted the longer top tube since I was setting it up for cross country. I run a long stem upside down on that bike to compensate for the high headtube and 180 fork. It actually works pretty well for everything short of serious downhill. If I was going to go to a park I would change things around. I run a wide bar too. However on med xc bikes I'm afraid that the short stem might do just what you are saying and a new bike is not in the budget for a while.

    But with so much positive feedback I'm going to have to try it. Unfortunately to really test it out I'm going to have to wait until spring.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k0y0te's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    179
    I tried a 100mm, 90mm, 70mm and 65mm on my rigid bike and found that the 65mm stem and a nice wide bar works best for me. It takes a lot of weight off of the hands and makes the front of the bike easier to lift over obstacles. My hands and arms don't take as much of a beating now.

    The front end is a little light on the climbs, but I think that the trade off is worth it for this application.

    If I ever switched back to a suspension fork, I would consider a longer stem. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    898
    My 29er had a 90mm stem on it and I always felt my hands getting sore after a short while. I swapped it out for a 60mm stem and my hands feel much better - presumably due to the slight shift in weight distribution. It has also quickened up the steering a lot.

  14. #14
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    So for those who have thought their decision through and have tried different stem lengths and have settled on a short stem as their final choice how did you arrive at this decision and how does it work overall, not just on the way down?
    I arrived at the decision by trying it.

    I liked it, found zero problems climbing the same tech stuff, so I stayed short & stubby. It works fine.

    Short stems like wide bars though.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    I really like to understand the reasons behind the feelings so let's see if this makes any sense in defense of the short stem/wide bars and bigger frame idea.

    Ok.. so with a shorter stem the relationship of where your hands are compared to the front axle will be farther back and that should help with lessening the tendency to go over the bars on a steep downhill. That is fixed.

    The wider bars put your center of gravity a bit farther forward but the axle is still farther in front of the bar center than with a long stem.

    Everyone says that wider bars are pretty much mandatory and along with putting your center of gravity farther forward they will also slow up the steering somewhat because you are having to move the grip farther to get the same result at the stem. I don't know what the mathematical relationship between bar width and stem length is for steering response but let's say that going from a 610mm bar to a 710mm bar may be the same as going from a 110mm stem to a 80mm stem. (710/80 = 610/110) Just a guess.

    People are also saying a jump up in frame size is a good idea so if you throw in a large vs med Yelli Screamy the effective top tube is 24.5 for the lrg and 23.75 for the med. That's going to be roughly 20mm added to the effective stem length in relation to the cranks/saddle/rear axle with the large.

    So if a 110mm stem with 610mm bars feels about the same as an 80mm stem on 710 bars and a large frame adds another effective 20mm to the stem length in the end you could say that a 710 bar on a large frame with a 60mm stem should feel about the same as a 610 bar on a med frame with a 110 stem. In other words about like a normal mtbike in pedaling, climbing and steering but with a more confidence inspiring relationship to the front axle to keep you from going over the bars as often and more leverage for steering from the wider bars.

    Of course that relationship to the front axle will affect things a bit too but maybe not too much and people are saying the trade off is worth it.

    Does that make sense? Maybe some of the brainiacs will join in.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  16. #16
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    A wide bar on a long stem feels pretty awful to me, a narrow bar with a short stem is just as bad. So just switching one will likely not put you in the sweet spot.
    Right!

    I found that a short stem and a narrow bar (typical XC race bar) on all of my bikes just made the front wheel kind of flop from side to side, rather than turn. But I like bars in the 640-660mm width range with 105-120mm length.

    BB

  17. #17
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,492
    For 80% of people stem length is about fit. The other 20% either don't know any better or are DH'ers/huckers. and are more concerned with handling than the last bit of cockpit length

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    For 80% of people stem length is about fit. The other 20% either don't know any better or are DH'ers/huckers. and are more concerned with handling than the last bit of cockpit length
    I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but people here aren't recommending compromising proper fit just for certain handling characteristics. What most are saying is that "fit" is a multi-faceted concept where stem length needs to change when bar width changes in order to still fit properly. Stem angle, stem spacers, bar rise, etc all factor in to what the "correct" stem length is too. There isn't just one single correct fit for a given person on a given bike.
    Last edited by boomn; 02-04-2011 at 07:49 PM.

  19. #19
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    I really like to understand the reasons behind the feelings so let's see if this makes any sense in defense of the short stem/wide bars and bigger frame idea.

    Ok.. so with a shorter stem the relationship of where your hands are compared to the front axle will be farther back and that should help with lessening the tendency to go over the bars on a steep downhill. That is fixed.

    The wider bars put your center of gravity a bit farther forward but the axle is still farther in front of the bar center than with a long stem.

    Everyone says that wider bars are pretty much mandatory and along with putting your center of gravity farther forward they will also slow up the steering somewhat because you are having to move the grip farther to get the same result at the stem. I don't know what the mathematical relationship between bar width and stem length is for steering response but let's say that going from a 610mm bar to a 710mm bar may be the same as going from a 110mm stem to a 80mm stem. (710/80 = 610/110) Just a guess.

    People are also saying a jump up in frame size is a good idea so if you throw in a large vs med Yelli Screamy the effective top tube is 24.5 for the lrg and 23.75 for the med. That's going to be roughly 20mm added to the effective stem length in relation to the cranks/saddle/rear axle with the large.

    So if a 110mm stem with 610mm bars feels about the same as an 80mm stem on 710 bars and a large frame adds another effective 20mm to the stem length in the end you could say that a 710 bar on a large frame with a 60mm stem should feel about the same as a 610 bar on a med frame with a 110 stem. In other words about like a normal mtbike in pedaling, climbing and steering but with a more confidence inspiring relationship to the front axle to keep you from going over the bars as often and more leverage for steering from the wider bars.

    Of course that relationship to the front axle will affect things a bit too but maybe not too much and people are saying the trade off is worth it.

    Does that make sense? Maybe some of the brainiacs will join in.
    I don't recommend changing frame sizes, but that is personal.

    Here's how I see it: The rider is limited as to where he can place the bike forward or back ward by the pivot points of his hands and feet. If that pivot point is way forward with a longer stem, there is only so far forward you can put the frame when attacking steep downhill terrain. A shorter stem can make that up to a couple inches more forward which can significantly help in these situations, you are not as locked in to one position and can move the bike more dynamically.

    What is the disadvantage: Eventually, the cockpit will be so short you bang your knees.

    Will climbing be affected? Not really. Lean over more, scootch forward on the saddle. Tech climbing is all about keeping your weight centered between the wheels as the terrain angles under you and that is pretty much not at all affected by stem length. Most of you weight is centered around your gut.

    Will cornering be affected? Yes, a little more because you it is a little harder to weight the front wheel and wash out can occur. The solution is the same as above, move your weight forward using your core and bend your elbows.

    There is the explanation, but I still encourage you to just try it yourself and see.

    Another tip is that as the stem shortens, the bars should come down a little bit.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  20. #20
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,336
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    For 80% of people stem length is about fit. The other 20% either don't know any better or are DH'ers/huckers. and are more concerned with handling than the last bit of cockpit length
    Put it in the context of cars.
    If you're driving 300 miles, seat position is crucial, you're probably mostly going straight on the freeway so handling is secondary.
    An F1 or rally racer would probably sacrifice comfort for better handling though.

    But you are right, at least %80 of drivers are just trying to get from point A to point B in comfort, with little regard to "handling".

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab
    For 80% of people stem length is about fit. The other 20% either don't know any better or are DH'ers/huckers. and are more concerned with handling than the last bit of cockpit length
    Thank you. Can you believe all the comments here?..lol.
    Amazing. People going to bigger bikes so they can put on a short stem...wow.
    I run long stems and a relatively wide bar and how long a stem is pertains to top tube length, seat tube angle and what sweep bars I use. Stem length should be about cockpit length to maximize riding position and not pander to some sense of norm about how quickly the bike should steer. The geometry of the bike ie. head tube angle, chain stay length, trail and wheelbase trump stem length when it comes to steering response.
    Last edited by dirtrider7; 02-05-2011 at 04:59 PM.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Put it in the context of cars.
    If you're driving 300 miles, seat position is crucial, you're probably mostly going straight on the freeway so handling is secondary.
    An F1 or rally racer would probably sacrifice comfort for better handling though.

    But you are right, at least %80 of drivers are just trying to get from point A to point B in comfort, with little regard to "handling".
    it isn't about comfort. Its about power. Placing a short stem on a bike to fit some pseudo ideal about appropriate steering response is the wrong priority if you end up with a cramped riding position which robs power including standing out of the saddle in climbs.
    The car analogy fails because in the case of a bicycle the rider is also the engine.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    Can you believe all the comments here?..lol.

    Well, not really if you look at the number of people out there running short stems. That's why I started the thread to see what was really behind it.

    I'm riding in Southern Fla right now and even though the trails are simply moderate XC trails with a few nice technical climbs and only 2 or 3 steep rough short downhills you see a lot of guys riding bikes that would be more at home on a dirt jump track or on a downhill run. I don't see how they could feel good in the twisties or climbing the hard hills.

    But I have to admit I haven't gotten the nerve yet to ride down a couple of those steep downhills with the rocks and water bars across them. They just scream painful endo if you screw up a little. However I'm not going to build up a bike for 2 hills that is compromised on the other 99.9%.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    people can read dirtrider's blather. Alternatively, they can approach this intelligently and simply try a variety of stem / bar combos until they find what works best for them on their terrain. pretty revolutionary.

    as has been stated thousands of times on this forum, and several times in this thread, it's a function of bar and stem geometry. if you end up feeling cramped, either put on a wider bar or a slightly longer stem. it's not rocket science. and as more and more riders have found, a wide bar / short stem can greatly improve the handling on fast, technical descents.

    i have a 70 mm on most of my XC-oriented bikes, with a bar in the 700-720 range with moderate sweep (longer stems with high sweep bars). day rides in tahoe usually include 5,000+ v ft of climbing. climbing efficiency is important, and with enough experimentation you can find the sweet spot setup that optimizes climbing and descending.

    Don't overlook bar height relative to the ground. short stem + high riser bar can suck on long steep climbs.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    people can read dirtrider's blather. Alternatively, they can approach this intelligently and simply try a variety of stem / bar combos until they find what works best for them on their terrain. pretty revolutionary.

    as has been stated thousands of times on this forum, and several times in this thread, it's a function of bar and stem geometry. if you end up feeling cramped, either put on a wider bar or a slightly longer stem. it's not rocket science. and as more and more riders have found, a wide bar / short stem can greatly improve the handling on fast, technical descents.

    i have a 70 mm on most of my XC-oriented bikes, with a bar in the 700-720 range with moderate sweep (longer stems with high sweep bars). day rides in tahoe usually include 5,000+ v ft of climbing. climbing efficiency is important, and with enough experimentation you can find the sweet spot setup that optimizes climbing and descending.

    Don't overlook bar height relative to the ground. short stem + high riser bar can suck on long steep climbs.
    Blather is one thing but you are the guy riding frames that are too long for you with the short stems you are sporting.
    I do agree that experimentation is the best teacher so you don't totally miss the point.
    Try a smaller frame and a more conventional stem length. You will find that a shorter wheelbase bike will quicken the steering response more than a shorter stem.

  26. #26
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,336
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    it isn't about comfort. Its about power. Placing a short stem on a bike to fit some pseudo ideal about appropriate steering response is the wrong priority if you end up with a cramped riding position which robs power including standing out of the saddle in climbs.
    Are you pedaling with your arms?

    I think the OP has answered his own question by noting that he's walking stuff due to fear of an endo. Too much weight over the front wheel?

    It is possible to have a bike that fits, and has a short stem and wide bars too. I own several great for going uphill and down too!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Are you pedaling with your arms?

    I think the OP has answered his own question by noting that he's walking stuff due to fear of an endo. Too much weight over the front wheel?

    It is possible to have a bike that fits, and has a short stem and wide bars too. I own several great for going uphill and down too!
    You can own a garage full and that won't change anything.
    The companies that design and manufacture top of the line 29ers know more about them then guys like you who post on the internet. Med-XL bikes...no stock 29ers designed for XC come from the factory with a 70mm stem...none, nada zilch. Std stem length is 90-120mm. There can be an argument for a DH specific bike to have a short stem. Lance was asked in an interview at Leadville why he didn't ride a drop bar on his mtb like a few that competed. Since Lance is famous for being an elite road biker, this would be a natural. He smiled and said because it would be too scary descending. FWIW Lance and even Dave Weins that have won that race the majority of the time the last few years both ride with 120mm stems...Lance with a high handlebar and Weins with a very low bar.
    You can put fly handlebars on your bike as well and even 23c tires and ride it underwater.
    As to doing endos...endos aren't about stem length. They are about handlebar 'height.'

  28. #28
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,336
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    The companies that design and manufacture top of the line 29ers know more about them then guys like you who post on the internet.
    As to doing endos...endos aren't about stem length. They are about handlebar 'height.'
    That really is great info. I'm going to make that my signature to help spread the word!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    That really is great info. I'm going to make that my signature to help spread the word!
    Don't forget to add that stubby stems make fast descents even twitchier...lol.

  30. #30
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    Don't forget to add that stubby stems make fast descents even twitchier...lol.
    Your point is?

    I'm pretty sure most go with a wider handlebar to better leverage that effect. On most 29ers, the quicker steering is welcome. On any bike with a slack HA, it's welcome.

    I assume you're trying to argue against it, judging from your earlier posts. I'd say something about big manufacturers trying to set up their different sizes to handle a range of cockpit lengths with consideration of riders/LBS putting stems of various lengths on them, giving more room to adjust rather than spec everything going with long top tube and short stem, but I'm no way involved with their business and have very little clue as to what their true reasons for it are.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    Dang, now I'm curious. I just changed my stem from a 100 to a 70. I'm gonna ride it for a while and see if there are any notable differences.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    Std stem length is 90-120mm. There can be an argument for a DH specific bike to have a short stem.
    I would love to hear that argument.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    ...no stock 29ers designed for XC come from the factory with a 70mm stem...none, nada zilch. Std stem length is 90-120mm.
    My GT Peace 9R came with a 75mm stem...stock, does that count?

    To the OP, my 7point3 came with a 60mm stem about 700 wide bars really liked the feel, then got a GT peace 9R multi which came with a fairly short and stock EA30 75mm stem and bars (685 wide) felt really good no problems climbing. When it came time to build my RIP9 I went with the same components as my 7point, bu the front -end stays down alot better than the 7point on climbs even with a 140mm fork.
    Last edited by socal_jack; 02-06-2011 at 10:24 AM.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    517
    I took the 640mm bars with 90mm stem off my bike and went to a 710mm width bar and 70mm stem on my 2010 Rockhopper 29er, and it made a world of difference to my bike. Its gives me much more confidence when riding on steeper climbs and descents. All I can say is to try it and you will probably like it.

    The only downside I see is when I am going between tight trees I sometimes bang the bars.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,266
    I think the whole idea of "proper fit" on a mtn bike is laughable. People try to apply the same principles used in road bike fitting and it just doesn't work. On a mtn bike you are using the bike in a much more dynamic way, you are constantly having to adapt to different demands, terrain, etc... Make the bike work for the terrain you ride and then fit yourself in it.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    I would love to hear that argument.
    For freeride/freestyle it makes it easier to manual and bunny hop to have a shorter stem. It also makes bar spins easier.
    For DH, it shifts your weight and balance farther back which helps keep you from flying over the bars on real steep descents. You also get quicker turning response do to a shorter turning radius of the bars. This could be seen as a downside b/c you are more twitchy/less stable.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath
    For freeride/freestyle it makes it easier to manual and bunny hop to have a shorter stem. It also makes bar spins easier.
    For DH, it shifts your weight and balance farther back which helps keep you from flying over the bars on real steep descents. You also get quicker turning response do to a shorter turning radius of the bars. This could be seen as a downside b/c you are more twitchy/less stable.
    I forgot to mention also that you aren't going to bend a 50mm stem.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    Blather is one thing but you are the guy riding frames that are too long for you with the short stems you are sporting.
    I do agree that experimentation is the best teacher so you don't totally miss the point.
    Try a smaller frame and a more conventional stem length. You will find that a shorter wheelbase bike will quicken the steering response more than a shorter stem.
    Building off of what has been repeated so many times, my bike did fit with a "conventional" stem length (100-110mm) when I was using narrower bars. Then I moved to a 30" riser and I shortened the stem to 75mm based on test rides with a number of different stem lengths. 75mm gave me the best fit on the bike for comfort, control and power (without compromising any of them either). My frame size didn't change and it hadn't been too long before. If you're saying I should have bought a shorter frame to match instead of a shorter stem, well that's just silly and it negates other advantages of a shorter stem.

    What makes "conventional" stem lengths necessarily the ideal length anyway?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath
    For DH, it shifts your weight and balance farther back which helps keep you from flying over the bars on real steep descents.
    I deleted the FR comment because the subject was DH and I deleted the argument against. Not trying to remove context, just trying to focus.

    First and foremost, I wanted to hear an argument from dirtrider7 since it's his posturing that's at issue. He can't make such an argument without contradicting his own logic. Having others comment on his behalf defeats the purpose.

    To your point, though, shifting weight back on a DH bike is the whole point but it doesn't argue in favor of a shorter stem, it argues in favor of a frame designed to do that. You could design a DH bike with proper weight distribution and a longer stem if you wanted just as you can with any bike. dirtrider7's whole point is that a short stem shouldn't be used to compensate for a frame that is too long in the top tube, then he turns right around and says it's justified in the case of a DH bike. Get it?

    Historically, short stems and riser bars developed out of a need to adapt trail bikes to DH. Once dedicated frames for that purpose were viable, those band aids where no longer necessary yet they persisted. There is no argument for short stems in DH that doesn't equally apply to MTB in general. DH'ers don't want to ride in a laid out position and, increasingly, trail riders don't either.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    To the pro short stem peps.

    First question is do you have to lean farther forward, bend your elbows more than usual, to weight the front tire for railing turns to keep front end traction?

    Like I've said there are 2 parks to ride in where I am at the moment. One, the harder bigger place, traction is not really an issue but at the smaller twisty park a lot of the trails are made up of either coral gravel on hard pack something which is like riding on marbles or hard packed clay that gets slick with just a little moisture. Most of the times when I crash at this place it is because for a second I have lost concentration and put too much weight over the front wheel in a tight turn and when it goes there is not time to react and I'm on the hard ground. But I still need weight over the front to some degree of I won't be set up with my weight in the right place.

    I'm not sure this observation can be transferred over to a shorter stem with wider bars but I have an adjustable travel Pace fork and was riding it at about 5" for a while. This worked well in the corners but made it more dicey on the drops so I cranked it up to 6" and now going down most stuff feels a lot better. I'm using every mm of travel btw. I had a spacer under my stem to raise it up when I was at 5" because I felt like I was too biased to the front but when I went up to 6" this setting really didn't work and I felt like there really wasn't enough weight on the front wheel in both climbing and cornering. So I took out the 1/2" spacer and dropped the stem down and now it's enough in the middle ground to work in most trail situations pretty well.

    I've been going up with bars height in general. When I built this bike the stem was inverted and all the spacers were on top to compensate for the taller 150mm fork. Now I'm a lot more upright but still pretty bent over with the bars 2-3" below the saddle.

    The point of all this is I'm wondering if a shorter stem will provide a similar unweighted front end feeling? A shorter stem may not raise your hands up but it raises your center up and back to some degree.

    Other than the cash out the door I don't see any reason not to try a shorter stem and wider bars on this bike. I've run 710mm bars on a long stem for about 5 years on one bike and my new AM bike has 730s. I like the leverage and have gotten used to avoiding trees, so I know what wide bars feel like and like it.

    This bike has a 120mm stem with 10' to 15' rise and a flat 610mm bar. Without buying a bunch of stems (any other stems I have are not at this location) what do you guys think I should try with a 710 bar? I'm thinking somewhere around 70mm. ??

    To the anti short stem guys, I understand where you are coming from too and in the end the experiment may not pan out but other than the $ I see no reason not to try it out.

    I've found over the many years of riding mtbs that you can quickly adjust to bikes that aren't built to text book stats and still have a bike that works well and is fun to ride.

    Besides I like experiments outside the norm
    Last edited by modifier; 02-06-2011 at 11:35 AM.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  41. #41
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    To the pro short stem peps.

    First question is do you have to lean farther forward, bend your elbows more than usual, to weight the front tire for railing turns to keep front end traction?

    Like I've said there are 2 parks to ride in where I am at the moment. One, the harder bigger place, traction is not really an issue but at the smaller twisty park a lot of the trails are made up of either coral gravel on hard pack something which is like riding on marbles or hard packed clay that gets slick with just a little moisture. Most of the times when I crash at this place it is because for a second I have lost concentration and put too much weight over the front wheel in a tight turn and when it goes there is not time to react and I'm on the hard ground. But I still need weight over the front to some degree of I won't be set up with my weight in the right place.

    I'm not sure this observation can be transferred over to a shorter stem with wider bars but I have an adjustable travel Pace fork and was riding it at about 5" for a while. This worked well in the corners but made it more dicey on the drops so I cranked it up to 6" and now going down most stuff feels a lot better. I'm using every mm of travel btw. I had a spacer under my stem to raise it up when I was at 5" because I felt like I was too biased to the front but when I went up to 6" this setting really didn't work and I felt like there really wasn't enough weight on the front wheel in both climbing and cornering. So I took out the 1/2" spacer and dropped the stem down and now it's enough in the middle ground to work in most trail situations pretty well.

    I've been going up with bars height in general. When I built this bike the stem was inverted and all the spacers were on top to compensate for the taller 150mm fork. Now I'm a lot more upright but still pretty bent over with the bars 2-3" below the saddle.

    The point of all this is I'm wondering if a shorter stem will provide a similar unweighted front end feeling? A shorter stem may not raise your hands up but it raises your center up and back to some degree.

    Other than the cash out the door I don't see any reason not to try a shorter stem and wider bars on this bike. I've run 710mm bars on a long stem for about 5 years on one bike and my new AM bike has 730s. I like the leverage and have gotten used to avoiding trees, so I know what wide bars feel like and like it.

    This bike has a 120mm stem with 10' to 15' rise and a flat 610mm bar. Without buying a bunch of stems (any other stems I have are not at this location) what do you guys think I should try with a 710 bar? I'm thinking somewhere around 70mm. ??

    To the anti short stem guys, I understand where you are coming from too and in the end the experiment may not pan out but other than the $ I see no reason not to try it out.

    I've found over the many years of riding mtbs that you can quickly adjust to bikes that aren't built to text book stats and still have a bike that works well and is fun to ride.

    Besides I like experiments outside the norm
    710mm bars are fine with any stem length.

    Yes, you need to lean over more to weight the front.

    Longer stems require a higher bar position for the same back position. Think about it. As the stem shortens, you should lower your bars if you want to keep the same amount of leaned over-ness

    You can adapt to anything, but I found that having high, forward bars put my CG relative to the front wheel higher (this is what causes endos), and there was nothing I could do about it because my hands were locked in that position, and I only have so much movement and arm length available.

    Ask yourself these questions:
    1. How many times have you wished you could get your weight more back and lower and been simply unable to?
    2. How many times have you wanted to weight the front wheel more and been unable to?

    In my experience, I found that the answer to question 1 was often, and the answer to question two was almost never. My solution was a shorter stem.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by phillabong
    Dang, now I'm curious. I just changed my stem from a 100 to a 70. I'm gonna ride it for a while and see if there are any notable differences.
    Did 18 today on some up and down single track with a 70mm stem. The biggest thing I noticed was that my triceps became fatigued sooner, which I thought was odd. Now I want to switch back, do the same ride, and see if I notice the same thing.

    I liked climbing better with the stubby too, especially steep stuff. I felt a bit more in control on those sections of trail.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by phillabong
    Did 18 today on some up and down single track with a 70mm stem. The biggest thing I noticed was that my triceps became fatigued sooner, which I thought was odd. Now I want to switch back, do the same ride, and see if I notice the same thing.

    I liked climbing better with the stubby too, especially steep stuff. I felt a bit more in control on those sections of trail.
    They might just be weak and out of shape Seriously though, changing the angle of your elbows will change what muscles are used and how much. Not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly something your body needs time to try to adjust to

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    259
    To those of you swapping to shorter stems, are you attempting to keep the same "rider compartment" length by pushing the saddle back the same amount the stem is shortening?

    It seems to me that once you settle on correct cockpit length, it's best to stick with it by adjusting stem length and saddle fore-aft together. Then there's no need to worry about getting more upright.

    I'm curious what others are doing. I don't really want to shorten my compartment, but the rearward weight shift associated with shorter stem/saddle back may be welcome.

    J
    DirtBrothers PA, est. 2006
    Bound By Dirt

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by JST169
    To those of you swapping to shorter stems, are you attempting to keep the same "rider compartment" length by pushing the saddle back the same amount the stem is shortening?

    It seems to me that once you settle on correct cockpit length, it's best to stick with it by adjusting stem length and saddle fore-aft together. Then there's no need to worry about getting more upright.

    I'm curious what others are doing. I don't really want to shorten my compartment, but the rearward weight shift associated with shorter stem/saddle back may be welcome.

    J
    nope, I didn't. Like many others here, I went to a stubbier stem at the same time I went to a wider bar. My chest is still in about the same place on the bike and not really any more or less upright, but my arms are in more a down pushup position than before

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    My interest in going to a shorter stem was due to playing around with saddle position (fore-aft) and realizing that I felt most comfortable with my saddle very far forward. Since I didn't want (or like the looks of) my saddle that far forward, my solution was to shorten the stem and move the saddle back to a more central position. But I tried a 40mm shorter stem and only slid my saddle back about 25mm. It didn't necessarily feel bad or worse. It was more like I just noticed a subtle difference which took me a while to adjust to.

    For what it's worth, the first thing I noticed was that descending some rocky, technical sections felt sketchier at first. But that may very well have just been the different position relative to the bike, that I was adjusting to.

    Oh yeah, I should add that my triceps aching a bit may have been due to having added some bar ends for the first time, which I used a lot today. That 90 degree rotation of my forearms may have very likely contributed to my tricep fatigue.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by phillabong

    For what it's worth, the first thing I noticed was that descending some rocky, technical sections felt sketchier at first. But that may very well have just been the different position relative to the bike, that I was adjusting to.

    Oh yeah, I should add that my triceps aching a bit may have been due to having added some bar ends for the first time, which I used a lot today. That 90 degree rotation of my forearms may have very likely contributed to my tricep fatigue.

    That's odd that it felt more sketchy descending. I assumed that would be the one kind of trail situation it would make easier if anywhere.

    Did you add the bar ends and ride on them a lot because you felt too cramped up on the grips because of the short stem?

    I ordered some 720mm 1/2" rise bars and a 70mm stem to check it out. I figure if it doesn't work out I can use them on a freeride bike. I can also experiment with various combinations adding the 120mm stem and flat 610mm bars into the mix.

    I also plan on sliding my my saddle back to prevent feeling so cramped in the cockpit.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    137
    Sliding your saddle back I would be worried about position of you knees over your pedals when sitting and spinning. I am by no means educated in bicycle fit, I am just interested.
    Bianchi San Jose commute/town duties and fixie trail riding. Bianchi C.U.S.S for days I feel like riding a MTN bike.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    I'm using the bar ends because I wasn't completely happy with my Ergons and wanted to try something else for a while.

    And I wonder if the sketchy sensation that I experienced was due more to the slight difference in my center-of-gravity relative to the bikes? I can say that I didn't notice it as much towards the end of the ride. But then again, pretty much all of those techy downhill sections were early in the ride. I think I'll just leave the current set-up the way it is for a while longer before passing judgement.

  50. #50
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095

    Wow

    If ever there was a bike fit 101 class needed, it would be for this thread.

    It all starts with proper frame size. ETT is most important. It's difficult to compensate for a frame thats the wrong size.

    Saddle height is set for effiency. You'll want maximum power being transfered from the power supply ( your legs) to the ground. A really low saddle isnt using the power supply effiently.


    Saddle for/aft.... With the ball of your foot above the axle of your pedal. You will want the center of your knee to align with the center of your pedal axle when dropping a plumb bob. Set back post or cramming a saddles for/aft adjustment to the limit doesnt compensate for ETT. Again. It all starts with ETT.

    Stem length is to get the riders weight were they need it . To light on the front and the front end wanders on climbs. On the other hand, it's easier to transfer weight and lighten up the front end on decends. Making it more nimble.

    Longer stems weight the front end more. Making them better for climbing. Also placing a little more of the riders weight on the front end. Sometimes helping the front tire to dig in more. Other times causing the front tire to bite to much.

    Personally I like the correct ETT with a stem between 90-110mm for riding. Its easier to place weight behind the saddle on steep decends than it is to place it over the front wheel for everything else.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61

    wow what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    If ever there was a bike fit 101 class needed, it would be for this thread.

    It all starts with proper frame size. ETT is most important. It's difficult to compensate for a frame thats the wrong size.

    Saddle height is set for effiency. You'll want maximum power being transfered from the power supply ( your legs) to the ground. A really low saddle isnt using the power supply effiently.


    Saddle for/aft.... With the ball of your foot above the axle of your pedal. You will want the center of your knee to align with the center of your pedal axle when dropping a plumb bob. Set back post or cramming a saddles for/aft adjustment to the limit doesnt compensate for ETT. Again. It all starts with ETT.

    Stem length is to get the riders weight were they need it . To light on the front and the front end wanders on climbs. On the other hand, it's easier to transfer weight and lighten up the front end on decends. Making it more nimble.

    Longer stems weight the front end more. Making them better for climbing. Also placing a little more of the riders weight on the front end. Sometimes helping the front tire to dig in more. Other times causing the front tire to bite to much.

    Personally I like the correct ETT with a stem between 90-110mm for riding. Its easier to place weight behind the saddle on steep decends than it is to place it over the front wheel for everything else.
    Sorry, I didn't realize that I needed to fill in so many blanks. Without typing some verbose post explaining myself, I've already done the saddle height/plumb bob analysis, just as I've always done for the last 30 years of my cycling life . My interest in stem length was predicated on recently swapping to a new frame with a 12mm longer ETT. When I first rode it - with the same 110mm stem as the previous frame - I noticed the additional length so I slid the saddle forward to compensate. It then "felt" better. Since I didn't like the saddle that far forward, I decided to try a shorter stem to be able to slide the saddle back to a more central position. About the same time that I was considering these issues, this thread popped up so I've followed it with keen interest, since I'm attempting to dial in my ride. End of story.

  52. #52
    up n over
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    407
    Stop thinking so much and develop skills.
    I rode a SS steel 29er ht with a ritchey world bar and
    100mm stem at every park in south
    Florida. I own a Nicholai as well and laugh at the full
    body armoured DH bike riders in SFL.
    It's all a fad.
    "my cat's breath smells like catfood."
    -ralph wiggum

  53. #53
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll

    Saddle for/aft.... With the ball of your foot above the axle of your pedal. You will want the center of your knee to align with the center of your pedal axle when dropping a plumb bob.
    Not looking to argue, but the cleat position/KOPS thing has been argued against in recent years.

    I am not happy in that position at all. My cleat is lined up with the "ball" of my longest toe and my plumb is less than plumb.

    Stubby stem user since 2004.
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3¢ every time I post on MTBR.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phillabong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    Agreed. I used the knee-over-pedal-spindle set up much more acutely when I was a roadie. It doesn't seem to apply as much - at least for me - now that I spend the vast majority of my time on twisty, rocky singletrack. I just use the old fit kit/plumb bob method to get everything close and then dial it in from there by how it feels. I typically accomplish this based on making subtle changes here and there and testing them on the trail as well as the trainer. Different saddles, different bar widths, different cleat position, different geo, different materials, blah blah blah.

    As for elsewhere's comment about the need to "develop skills," I agree with that as well. That's why I always have various sections of my favorite trails in mind that challenge my technical abilities. But I'm also 48 now my body lets me know quite often that I'm not as resilient and and spry as I used to be. My bodies naturally declining inefficiency is in direct conflict with my desire to increase my training miles (I did 800 s'track miles last year and plan to do 1200 this year). I also hope to do some marathon distance events this year. Consequently, I'm trying to find the most comfortable position that I can obtain in an effort to be as efficient as possible.

    Maybe a shorter stem will help, maybe it won't. But after a few more rides I should have a better idea and will go from there. I'm only here looking to gain some additional insight so I can progress my my riding efficiency while I'm still able to hammer one of these damn things.

  55. #55
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095
    Perhaps find a good LBS thats geared a little more towards road bikes and have them help you get fitted. Roadies are anal when it comes to fit and effiency. Might only need another spacer under your stem or change the sweep/rise of your bars.

    Best thing I did was change from a narrow flat bar, to a low rise with 12 degrees of sweep, 660 wide. The 12 degree sweep shortened the cock pit slightly and got me a little more upright. I like flat bars, however the fact is Im getting to old for them. I know, I know, I just need to ride more. yada yada yada

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    Saddle for/aft.... With the ball of your foot above the axle of your pedal. You will want the center of your knee to align with the center of your pedal axle when dropping a plumb bob. Set back post or cramming a saddles for/aft adjustment to the limit doesnt compensate for ETT. Again. It all starts with ETT.
    What position is the crank supposed to be at when the center of your knee is over the pedal spindle?
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by elsewhere
    Stop thinking so much and develop skills.
    I rode a SS steel 29er ht

    It's quite amusing how many people who say 'don't think ride' ride SS rigid.

    There seems to be some link between simple bikes and simple.....

    lol
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  58. #58
    up n over
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    407
    Just a hard tail not rigid. And in Fla a DH FR bike is
    IMO pointless unless ur hitting all the jumps and drops
    like the 20footers at Santos in Ocala.
    My rig is actually a 2speed with a thumby.
    Simplicity is never wrong.
    I love my fully adjustable nicholai but in Florida it will
    never see it's full potential.
    IMO most people ride bikes purchased based on hype.
    As it has been said before short stems are from an era when
    folks were watching Eddie Roman's Hammer time and converting
    any old bike to a DH or wannabe trials rig.
    Bikes today come with VERY close to the correct hardware for the Geo
    it was meant to have. GENERALLY if u have to alter stem length more than
    15mm MAX 20 then there is a chance u have the wrong bike for your application.
    A good GENERAL rule of thumb is that your front hub should
    be hidden by your handlebars when u sit on the bike and look down. Make sure your shoulders are square to your back with elbows SLIGHTLY bent, your bars should be REALLY close to shoulder width.
    With your leg fully extended heel on axle of pedal your knee should pop straight for correct seat height. Move the saddle fore or aft to adjust to hit ur sit bones.
    Setback posts and short stems are made because only a certain few bikes have good geometry. Fisher was on with the G2 geo, jamis nailed it with the dragon...
    With all that said, ride how u will and buy what u want.
    "my cat's breath smells like catfood."
    -ralph wiggum

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    First phase of testing yesterday and today. I received my 70mm stem but not my 720 bars so I've got the short stem and 610 bars mounted up.

    Here is what I have noticed so far.

    I moved my saddle back about an inch to help alleviate the possible cramped cock pit feeling since I'm used to being stretched out. The saddle in this position has done something I didn't think about. Lots of times when I go into a corner I tend to move back on the seat a bit in preparation to my front possibly washing out. With the shorter stem and the saddle back I now just sit and rail the turns. It feels pretty good.

    It does seem to take more energy to get out of the saddle I feel to unweight and there is a lot more weight on the rear wheel. I added 10psi to my shock and a few psi to my rear tire.

    I've read and heard about the kneecap being over the pedal spindle when the crank is level pointed forward, some say it is the rule and some say that it is not reliable because people have different ratios of femur to radius/ulna bones which will change the relationship to the pedal. I have no opinion on this at this point but my kneecap is slightly behind the pedal center for what it's worth. Power to the pedals seems pretty good. The front does feel a bit light in steep climbs but I can compensate, however it takes more arm strength and I believe more energy over all to climb than with a longer stem. Part of this is that I am pulling from a position closer to my waist and so far it feels that I don't have the same power. But that could be simply because I'm not used to it. Idk.

    Where I am right now there aren't long hills so it's not much of and issue but if I were somewhere where there were long climbs the short stem might be a handy cap. Also with the twisty trails the quicker steering is a plus. I think having longer bars for leverage will lesson some of the effort and am looking forward to trying them except for the fitting between the trees part.

    Lofting the front wheel might be slightly easier I can't really tell.

    Whether psychological or physical going down steep rough sections and down drops seems a bit easier.

    I'm thinking maybe 80mm might have been a bit better but it's actually hard to tell. I think I'll have to switch back to the 120mm again after riding this for a while because you adjust to what you have pretty quickly and despite 30 years of mtb riding under my belt discerning what is really performing better overall is harder than one might think.

    It's different but I don't know if it's better. Likely better some places worse others. Maybe a compromise somewhere between 80 to 100 mm might offer the best of both for most conditions. Of course it also has to do with specific frame dimensions and geometry, different body types and terrain you ride most.

    That's it for now.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  60. #60
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095
    With all due respect. For someone with 30 years of mtn biking under your belt. You don't know much about bike fit. With that much experience you should be rubbing elbows and designing bikes with names like Keith Bontrager, Gary Fisher, Joe Murrey, Chris Chance.

    The late '70's and early '80's were the infant stages of mtn biking. If you have'nt figured out bike set up/ geometry by now, you probobly never well. Best of luck.

  61. #61
    Village Dirtbag
    Reputation: @dam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,276
    I predict a resurgance of bar-ends, especially on 29ers. Then you get the quick steering of a short stem, and can still keep the front end down and stretch out on the climbs.

  62. #62
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Depends on your frame too I guess. I like a short stem on a larger sized GFisher than a ~90mm on a smaller sized frame with similar geo.

    GF Superfly 100 17.5" with 60mm stem. 597mm ETT + 60 = 657mm cockpit. 685mm bars
    Motobecane Fly Team29 15.5" with 90mm stem. 570mm ETT + 90 = 660mm cockpit. 660mm bars

    I gain longer wheelbase, more weight back, faster steering, and the front is easier to loft. I don't sense the steering stability downside really, nor does the front feel like it wants to leave the ground on ascents or sudden significant pedal torque applications when I don't want it too. All the ups seem to outweigh the downs for me and my riding ability has never been better.

  63. #63
    up n over
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    407
    H
    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    With all due respect. For someone with 30 years of mtn biking under your belt. You don't know much about bike fit. With that much experience you should be rubbing elbows and designing bikes with names like Keith Bontrager, Gary Fisher, Joe Murrey, Chris Chance.

    The late '70's and early '80's were the infant stages of mtn biking. If you have'nt figured out bike set up/ geometry by now, you probobly never well. Best of luck.
    End quote.
    "my cat's breath smells like catfood."
    -ralph wiggum

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo Troll
    With all due respect. For someone with 30 years of mtn biking under your belt. You don't know much about bike fit. With that much experience you should be rubbing elbows and designing bikes with names like Keith Bontrager, Gary Fisher, Joe Murrey, Chris Chance.

    The late '70's and early '80's were the infant stages of mtn biking. If you have'nt figured out bike set up/ geometry by now, you probobly never well. Best of luck.
    Well what I meant was the "rules" people set up for what works based on road bikes sometimes don't transfer and also new ideas, data and standards come around.

    I have always run long stems and favored setting up for climbing efficiency over down hill ease. Like one poster pointed out it is easier to get your weight back than forward. I like to experiment with different ideas first hand to see how they work and have stated what I found so far. I installed the 720 bars yesterday and will ride them today.

    There is no denying that the trend in mountain bike fit over the last few years has been to more upright position and shorter stems. Some of that may be fashion and marketing hype and some of it may come from what actually works better over all. Hence the thread, hence the experiment. It's not like I had to build a whole new bike. It's just a bar and stem.

    Never met Keith. The other guys are cool.
    Last edited by modifier; 02-16-2011 at 11:38 AM.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    107
    Dude, stems are like $15. Just buy one and try it out yourself.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    458
    Going from a 90mm to a 70mm stem transformed my ride

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Ok final entry.

    Just got back from a ride with the 70mm stem and 720mm bars with 1/2" rise. I moved my saddle forward to within 1/2" of being centered after initially moving it back 1" to compensate for the short stem, so nothing too odd going on there any more.

    I have to say that it felt good. I now feel very neutral on the bike and all maneuvers except climbing felt better and climbing isn't bad. I still think that if you are in an area where there are lots of extended climbs on your trails that a longer stem would probably be better, but for this bike in this location going to a shorter stem and a wider bar was an improvement. An 80mm would likely be fine too.

    Dropping off of small ledges is now easier on my back and wrists. Turning in choppy or rooty corners seemed more in control, probably because I'm more centered on the bike, and going down steep declines was less edgy. Lofting the front tire over small stuff even in the middle of a climb seems easier too.

    The one thing that is harder is lofting the rear tire or unweighting the rear tire which is to be expected I guess because my weight is farther back and higher plus I no longer have the leverage of the long stem to help. I do stay seated more now, partially because I don't feel the need to get out of the saddle unless something big comes up.

    I was going to keep my long stem and 610 bars down here but now I really don't think I'll go back to them on this bike, so I might as well take them back with me to the midwest in a few weeks and maybe install them on my road bike. I put flat bars on my road bike a couple of months ago because I never road it, now it's novel enough to make it bearable.

    This wasn't the only thread going on this topic and I'm glad I read what everyone had to say. The majority who spoke up said they liked shorter stems.

    The same it true for the various flats vs clipless threads out there (flats are ahead) but that is one thing I just don't see myself switching up.

    Thanks for the posts.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  68. #68
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier
    The same it true for the various flats vs clipless threads out there (flats are ahead) but that is one thing I just don't see myself switching up.
    I forsee this thread turning into a flats vs clipless thread now...

  69. #69
    up n over
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    407
    "my cat's breath smells like catfood."
    -ralph wiggum

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    107
    No - but seriously, clipless are better no matter what the occasion.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider7
    FWIW Lance and even Dave Weins that have won that race the majority of the time the last few years both ride with 120mm stems...Lance with a high handlebar and Weins with a very low bar.
    You can put fly handlebars on your bike as well and even 23c tires and ride it underwater.
    As to doing endos...endos aren't about stem length. They are about handlebar 'height.'
    that actually is intersting. So tell, who endoed on his way to victory? Lance with the high bars or Dave with the low bars? ,-)

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mountaindavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    221
    My Rumblefish came with a 90mm stem--I swapped it for a 70mm and then a 50mm which I have been running and liking for months. I think I might toss on the 70 again just to see what it is like, but I think the 50 is pretty damn awesome. Yeah, I pull my arms back quite a bit to center my weight over the front for up-hill, but going downhill, I am screaming on my 29 and the weighted front tire give me traction galore. If I wasn't so in love with going down, I would probably set it up with a slightly longer stem. I used to ride clipless, but I am on flats now--they are the best! j/k

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    I'm thinking of running a negative stem, pointed back at my crotch and two yards of bar. More is clearly better, nobody ever wrote an over-excited post about a few millimetres here or there.

    Anyone know where I can find a nicely rounded stem so I don't rip my nuts off in a crash?

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by nuffink
    I'm thinking of running a negative stem, pointed back at my crotch and two yards of bar. More is clearly better, nobody ever wrote an over-excited post about a few millimetres here or there.

    Anyone know where I can find a nicely rounded stem so I don't rip my nuts off in a crash?
    Leave your stem as-is and get one of these, although it is only 30.7 inches wide

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    682
    I think I am running 100mm. I'm old school

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    Short stems rule.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stubby Stems-stem.jpg  


  77. #77
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,472
    I have only skimmed the responses, but a few thoughts:

    Put the saddle where it needs to be in relation to the pedals (however you end up figuring that out). If you have found an optimum saddle position, then moving it to keep the cockpit reach the same is a bad idea, IMO.

    I have found that a shorter reach (and therefore shorter stem) helps when going with wider bars, and also when I raise the height of my bars. As my bars have gotten wider and higher over the years, my overall reach (measured horizontally) has decreased, generally calling for shorter stems.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •