riser stems: an aesthetic discussion

[Climb01742]

in trying to find an answer to some presistent pain, i'm experimenting with a higher saddle position and higher bars. to get my bars where i want them (from an 8cm drop to a 5cm drop) i've had to install riser stems on some of my bikes.

the new position FEELS much better. no question about that. but i can't stop thinking about how awful riser stems LOOK to me. i hate how they look. no, hate is too weak of a word. detest is closer. yuck. i would much much prefer a taller headtube to either riser stems or stacks of spacers. (not at all debating bar position; just how to get there.)

i'm curious how others feel. if you had to get your bars up to a certain height, which would you prefer:

a) riser stem
b) spacers
c) taller headtube

aesthetically, i'd vote "c". howz about youz?

[e-RICHIE]

what stem angle are you starting with?
that's key.


some headsets, cane creek among them, offer
a taller upper cone which "replaces" at least
15mm of spacers, maybe more. all of our
'cross rigs have em...

[CJH]

Larger frame!?

[93legendti]

in trying to find an answer to some presistent pain, i'm experimenting with a higher saddle position and higher bars. to get my bars where i want them (from an 8cm drop to a 5cm drop) i've had to install riser stems on some of my bikes.

the new position FEELS much better. no question about that. but i can't stop thinking about how awful riser stems LOOK to me. i hate how they look. no, hate is too weak of a word. detest is closer. yuck. i would much much prefer a taller headtube to either riser stems or stacks of spacers. (not at all debating bar position; just how to get there.)

i'm curious how others feel. if you had to get your bars up to a certain height, which would you prefer:

a) riser stem
b) spacers
c) taller headtube

aesthetically, i'd vote "c". howz about youz?

How about a Heads Up adapter for a taller HT?

[Roy E. Munson]

spacers

[LegendRider]

Heads tubes that are too short (i.e., that require loads of spacers or riser stems) are my pet peeve. For example, my team's LBS has offered us Cannondale Six13's a great price. But, in my size (57cm), the headtube is only 16.3cm plus another .8 for the FSA top cap. That would require a 4cm of spacers for me and I run over 8cm of drop. For perspective, my 58cm Legend had a 17cm head tube (traditional) and you add 3.3cm of stack for a King headset. 20cm versus 17cm is a big difference - why do all these modern bikes do this???

[e-RICHIE]

Heads tubes that are too short (i.e., that require loads of spacers or riser stems) are my pet peeve. For example, my team's LBS has offered us Cannondale Six13's a great price. But, in my size (57cm), the headtube is only 16.3cm plus another .8 for the FSA top cap. That would require a 4cm of spacers for me and I run over 8cm of drop. For perspective, my 58cm Legend had a 17cm head tube (traditional) and you add 3.3cm of stack for a King headset. 20cm versus 17cm is a big difference - why do all these modern bikes do this???

JOE GILLES-
"You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA-
"I am big, it's the pictures that got small."
from "Sunset Boulevard"


what i meant to say was this...
the head tubes haven't changed at all;
the effein' headsets got miniaturized.

[David Kirk]

I fully understand and appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but........I went to the conect the dots school. I don't understand why a stem needs to go up before it goes down. Why not just go from point A to point B?

Dave

[LegendRider]

JOE GILLES-
"You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA-
"I am big, it's the pictures that got small."
from "Sunset Boulevard"


what i meant to say was this...
the head tubes haven't changed at all;
the effein' headsets got miniaturized.

True. But frame designers know this and they aren't compensating for it.

[e-RICHIE]

True. But frame designers know this and they aren't compensating for it.


blame the industry; one size fits all, and all that stuff!

[Len J]

Taller frame and therfor a longer headtube. Standover is overrated.

I had 2 cm of spacers on my Legend and everytime I looked at it I shuddered.....I really didn't like the way it looked.

There is a balance between a taller seattube, a 2 degree mild sloping toptube and a taller headtube coupled with an 84 degree stem that makes the bike look good and still gests the bars to the right place.

Just my .02

Len

[Smiley]

Climb wrote : in trying to find an answer to some presistent pain, i'm experimenting with a higher saddle position and higher bars. to get my bars where i want them (from an 8cm drop to a 5cm drop) i've had to install riser stems on some of my bikes."

I WORRY ABOUT THIS ISSUE WITH EACH FIT I DO , most importantly balancing the number of spacers along with head tube extension and yes maybe some slope in the TT to have a balanced look . If I do spec a bike build I tend to use a Ritchey stem in the + 6 degree rise set up IF a rise stem is still needed and I tend to leave at least 1-2 cm of spacers on top of the stem for WHAT IF crisis that may occur over time . Frankly an 8 cm drop is very aggressive for clients that don't maintain good flexibility and especially on smaller frames like your sir Climb . But I have been on risers stems now forever and I don't fight it anymore since I can't stand a sloping TT more then I can stand looking at lots of spacers , your pal Smiley

[e-RICHIE]

But I have been on risers stems now forever and I don't fight it anymore...


what is a riser stem?
a 90 degree?
an 84 degree?

wha?

[Fixed]

bro I vote for C but i bet doc e-richie will get this right for ya.cheers :beer:

[weisan]

How abot' d) Quill stem? :D

[Fixed]

bro Weisan is smart i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

<cut> (from an 8cm drop to a 5cm drop) <cut>


how much seatpost you got - just the round part?

[coylifut]

...for us non pros. like it was said before, a stem with a rise angle that matches the slope of the top tube looks balanced. I think the picture below is a nice set up for some one who wants to minimize bar drop. i think the bar tilt is a bit much, but other than that, it's viable solution while still looking good. I do realize that there are some who really don't like the look of sloping tubes, but it looks fine to me.

[e-RICHIE]

that frame appears to have an extended lug
as well as spacers. that's de rigeur*.









*i love latin.

[Bradford]

I just don't understand why people get so excited about these things. Spacers, no spacers; rise, no rise...

All I care about is how the bike rides and feels. All this pulling of hair and renting of clothes over the stem is confusing to me.

Make the bike fit, don't worry about how it looks, and get on with your life.

So many people here have so many rules about what looks right and what doesn't look right on a bike. I also know what looks good to my eye, but it just isn't that big of a deal. If the bike rides well, I just get used to it; if it doesn't ride well, it doesn't matter how good it looks, it is still a pig. Is this the Serotta board or Martha Stewart Living?

[e-RICHIE]

what kind of bicycle do you have?

[christian]

5mm spacer below, stem, 5mm spacer above (to ensure that the stem does not clamp the end of the steerer).

Anything else would be uncivilized.

- Christian

[Johny]

'The bicycle is sort of a picture," he says of what he, learned; 'it is artistic. Each bike has a basic function and specification. In addition to that, though, the bike has to be well-balanced and beautiful, both by itself and when the rider is on it. I build every bicycle as if everybody sees it and appreciates its beauty. I don't build in a mechanical way, because even if a bike is 100-percent mechanically correct, if it looks ugly when the rider is on it, then it is not successful.

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Japan/Nagasawa/b-guide_87_text.htm

[Bradford]

what kind of bicycle do you have?

Legend ST
Co-Motion tandem
IF Independence
and a old Stumpjumper M2FS Comp that collects dust in the basement

[Jeremy]

While some manufacturers are starting to offer longer head tubes on stock geometry bikes, there have been many trends that have shortened actual head tube lengths as well as "effective" head tube lengths. First of all, people ride smaller bikes than they used to, with more exposed seatpost and a correspondingly shorter head tube. Average top tube lengths for a given frame size seem to have gotten longer to accomodate the aesthetic preference for smaller frames. However, head tubes lengths were not increased until recently with upward sloping top tubes. Also, center to center measurements with a horizontal top tube were common in the past. Center to top measurements are more common now. With a horizontal top tube, that measurement can reduce the actual head tube length by 2-3cm. With a horizontal top tube, head tube lengths increased proportionally to seat tube length. With sloping top tubes, head tube length is a matter that varies dramatically across the spectrum. "Compact geometry" does not necessarily mean a longer head tube. These trends in frame design have nothing to do with the headset design, but they have shortened average head tube lengths for a given frame size. This trend seems to be changing now by offering varying degrees of upward slope to the top tube.

The next issue is headset design. Threaded to threadless and then standard to integrated have effectively shortened the head tube by reducing stack height and by limiting the commonly available range of upward adjustment. By my thinking the bar height issue is a combination of frame design trends and headset design changes. This is how it stacks down for me: People are sized to smaller bikes, effect at least 2cm; center to top seat tube measurements instead of center to center, effect 2-3cm; threaded to threadless, effect at least 1cm; threadless to integrated, effect 2cm. Total effect = 7-8cm effectively shorter head tubes since, say, the mid 70's. These numbers are, of course, approximations. Individual bikes and components can change the effect. But the downward trend is unambiguous and , it seems, that major frame manufacturers are only just starting to accomodate their designs accordingly. Stem manufacturers responded earlier by offering +/- 10 degree, +/- 6 degree and 0 degree stems. However, these offerings don't really compensate entirely because quill lengths often had more adjustability than the angular rise difference of the modern stems (not all of them, of course).

As for going up to come down, I agree it seems a little silly. Besides aesthetics I can only come up with one good reason for the "classic" -17 degree stem. With such a stem angle, one can adjust the reach independent of the rise. However, I must admit that the aesthetics of a riser stem don't look good to me. About the most I can tolerate is a 0 degree stem (effective average rise of 17 degrees)

Personally I prefer old school larger frames with correspondingly longer head tubes, stems of at least -10 degrees and standard threadless headsets. Spacer stacks of 3-4cm don't bother me, but I know that some find them ugly. To me they don't look any weirder than a relatively long section of exposed quill.

Jeremy

[e-RICHIE]

Legend ST
Co-Motion tandem
IF Independence
and a old Stumpjumper M2FS Comp that collects dust in the basement

those are all good and nice bikes.
i have a hard time think you're that pragmatic
about things and that "looks" are not important.

[e-RICHIE]

While some manufacturers are starting to offer longer head tubes on stock geometry bikes, there have been many trends that have shortened actual head tube lengths as well as "effective" head tube lengths. First of all, people ride smaller bikes than they used to, with more exposed seatpost and a correspondingly shorter head tube. Average top tube lengths for a given frame size seem to have gotten longer to accomodate the aesthetic preference for smaller frames. However, head tubes lengths were not increased until recently with upward sloping top tubes. Also, center to center measurements with a horizontal top tube were common in the past. Center to top measurements are more common now. With a horizontal top tube, that measurement can reduce the actual head tube length by 2-3cm. With a horizontal top tube, head tube lengths increased proportionally to seat tube length. With sloping top tubes, head tube length is a matter that varies dramatically across the spectrum. "Compact geometry" does not necessarily mean a longer head tube. These trends in frame design have nothing to do with the headset design, but they have shortened average head tube lengths for a given frame size. This trend seems to be changing now by offering varying degrees of upward slope to the top tube.

The next issue is headset design. Threaded to threadless and then standard to integrated have effectively shortened the head tube by reducing stack height and by limiting the commonly available range of upward adjustment. By my thinking the bar height issue is a combination of frame design trends and headset design changes. This is how it stacks down for me: People are sized to smaller bikes, effect at least 2cm; center to top seat tube measurements instead of center to center, effect 2-3cm; threaded to threadless, effect at least 1cm; threadless to integrated, effect 2cm. Total effect = 7-8cm effectively shorter head tubes since, say, the mid 70's. These numbers are, of course, approximations. Individual bikes and components can change the effect. But the downward trend is unambiguous and , it seems, that major frame manufacturers are only just starting to accomodate their designs accordingly. Stem manufacturers responded earlier by offering +/- 10 degree, +/- 6 degree and 0 degree stems. However, these offerings don't really compensate entirely because quill lengths often had more adjustability than the angular rise difference of the modern stems (not all of them, of course).

As for going up to come down, I agree it seems a little silly. Besides aesthetics I can only come up with one good reason for the "classic" -17 degree stem. With such a stem angle, one can adjust the reach independent of the rise. However, I must admit that the aesthetics of a riser stem don't look good to me. About the most I can tolerate is a 0 degree stem (effective average rise of 17 degrees)

Personally I prefer longer head tubes, stems of at least -10 degrees and standard threadless headsets. Spacer stacks of 3-4cm don't bother me, but I know that some find them ugly. To me they don't look any weirder than a relatively long section of exposed quill.

Jeremy



http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=131691&postcount=9

[Ken Robb]

I wish my legend (and some other bikes I own) had the Head Tube Extension. Since it doesn't I am eagerly awaiting the next batch of Heads Up units that have been promised to be coming soon for a year or so. In the meantime I am running about 40mm of spacers and a +10 degree stem. Yo Ritchie, I think that would be a riser. I think I would call a 90 or zero degree stem neutral but that's semantics for you. I like my bars an saddle almost even so you can see my 60cm Legend with this set-up. I'm not crazy about the look but it's comfortable and handles well for me and I can ride in the drops as comfortable as on the drops or hooks so I really have 3 good positions.

[Big Dan]

Ken, what kind of fork are you using with 40mm of spacers?
Remember that full carbon forks have a limit of spacers that should be used.....


Be safe............... :D

[TiGuy]

Is the real issue getting the bars higher or getting the brifter hoods higher (if you ride most of the time with your hands on them)?

My FSA bars have a relatively flat ramp to the hoods, which places the hoods higher than on most other bars. Makes for a comfy fit for me without changing the stem, adding spacers or requiring any other fashion gaffe. I suppose you could even eek out a bit more brifter height by tilting the bars back ever-so-slightly.

[Climb01742]

how much seatpost you got - just the round part?

richie, i'd have to measure at home. but my seat is now at 76.5cm on what are basically 55cm frames. the stems i'm experimenting with are ritchey WCS 84/96 flipped up. a larger frame is one solution but i have a short torso, so i get into TT issues.

[Ken Robb]

Legend has O2 fork and Waterford has Profile Design AC1-they both feel and work great. Neither I nor my tech have seen any bad results with these when properly cut/set up.

My favorite bars are Nitto Noodles--they have very nice flat ramps, the tops come back a bit toward the rider, and they are classic round bars in the drops--no "ergo bumps" that limit your positions.

[e-RICHIE]

richie, i'd have to measure at home. but my seat is now at 76.5cm on what are basically 55cm frames. the stems i'm experimenting with are ritchey WCS 84/96 flipped up. a larger frame is one solution but i have a short torso, so i get into TT issues.




i'll dust off the cray after my cross ride.

[Wayne77]

Aesthetically speaking, I'd rather see a spacer or two rather than a rocketship high-rise stem. Stems that tilt skyward a bunch seem to destroy the "forward movement" lines of the bicycle. I agree that a sloping tt tends to minimize this, as the tt tilts up a little as well.

Practically, I'm with D. Kirk though- there's no reason a stem can't go directly from point A to point B. Its just looks kinda funny, that's all. This whole stem aesthetic stems from the backwards "7" look of quill stems: it just looks "right".

There are some very subtle adjustments that can be used to compensate: Using bars with less ramp down to the hoods can buy you 1-2cm's. Even using a campy hood vs. a Shimano results in a slightly higher hand position on the hoods. As others have stated, a few headset makers (cane creek?) supply a nice tapered extension that looks nice. Also you might even look into some pedals with lower stack height (very minor -probably wouldn't lower your saddle by more than .5 cm, I'm not sure..), depending on what you are using now.

Starting form scratch with a custom frame opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Like many have stated before: 1-2 cm TT slope + external hs + 8cm bb drop vs 7cm + -6 deg stem (instead of -10 deg) + bars with less "ramp" easily buys someone 6-7 cm's of hieght, if needed. Hardly any of these adjustments affect the traditional aesthetic. IMO, this is where the value of a custom frame comes in: The ability to get exactly the look you want without having to mess with a builders tried and true critical geometry and handling characteristics.

[Climb01742]

Is the real issue getting the bars higher or getting the brifter hoods higher (if you ride most of the time with your hands on them)?

My FSA bars have a relatively flat ramp to the hoods, which places the hoods higher than on most other bars. Makes for a comfy fit for me without changing the stem, adding spacers or requiring any other fashion gaffe. I suppose you could even eek out a bit more brifter height by tilting the bars back ever-so-slightly.

i like to ride on the drops. and i like my drops long and flat (that is, parallel to the ground.) so part of the equation, too, is shallow vs deep drop bars (i like shallow drop.) for each of us, there are so many personal likes/dislikes that factor into fit and position.

[Bradford]

those are all good and nice bikes.
i have a hard time think you're that pragmatic
about things and that "looks" are not important.

To a certain extent you are right, I look at something and like it or don't, just like the next guy. I even have some strong feelings on colors. My only point is that I don't get too caught up in it.

My first positive stem was on my touring bike. When I first saw it, I thought "that looks a little funny," and then about a week later it just looked normal.

I like good looking stuff, I just like things that work well a lot more. When I can have both, I'm thrilled; if I can only have something that works well, that's good enough for me.

[e-RICHIE]

To a certain extent you are right, I look at something and like it or don't, just like the next guy. I even have some strong feelings on colors. My only point is that I don't get too caught up in it.

My first positive stem was on my touring bike. When I first saw it, I thought "that looks a little funny," and then about a week later it just looked normal.

I like good looking stuff, I just like things that work well a lot more. When I can have both, I'm thrilled; if I can only have something that works well, that's good enough for me.


well, you noted having 3 users and 1 in the basement.
does each of these have "looks", "work well", either, or both?

[jeffhall]

whatever you do, don't post a picture of your bike with whatever fit you end up with! Some guy will take shoots at it as being the wrong size.

I had a beautiful Ottrott that it happened to me on and I never heard the end of it!!!

Actually, now I am way more flexible and it rides great down lower.

[tch]

is what I think is important. I don't like any one element looking extreme.
For instance, I myself don't love the look of anything over about a 0* rise stem -- I think it looks like an out-of-balance attempt to rectify a problem -- though I myself have run a 6* rise when necessary. So I would favor taller headtube (though not a chimney), spacers (though not more than 3cm), and finally a positive rise stem as a last resort.

Since we are on a custom-bike discussion board, I think this is a question that SHOULD come up for each and every custom bike fabricated. For instance, if I had my own bike to do over, I'd have more of a TT slope (more compact style) and have the TT meet a taller headtube higher so I could eliminate 2cm of spacers and run a -6* stem more comfortably.

[LegendRider]

'The bicycle is sort of a picture," he says of what he, learned; 'it is artistic. Each bike has a basic function and specification. In addition to that, though, the bike has to be well-balanced and beautiful, both by itself and when the rider is on it. I build every bicycle as if everybody sees it and appreciates its beauty. I don't build in a mechanical way, because even if a bike is 100-percent mechanically correct, if it looks ugly when the rider is on it, then it is not successful.

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Japan/Nagasawa/b-guide_87_text.htm

Great article. It makes me miss the excellent writing in Bicycle Guide. A far cry from today's typical "stiff yet compliant" bike reviews...

[Jeremy]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=131691&postcount=9


Hi e-Richie,

This is truly a question. I am not sure what you were trying to get across by posting the link to this previous post. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Jeremy

[e-RICHIE]

Hi e-Richie,

This is truly a question. I am not sure what you were trying to get across by posting the link to this previous post. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Jeremy


...that we posted similarly.

[Jeremy]

OK, Thanks,

Jeremy

[jeffg]

I have a bike with 1.5 and 2cm HT extentsions, but I run an 84 degree stem on both with about 6cm of drop and 0.5-1cm of spacers, respectively. I think it works and I have wiggle room in both directions ...

[Bradford]

well, you noted having 3 users and 1 in the basement.
does each of these have "looks", "work well", either, or both?

That's a good question, I'll go bike by bike.

IF Independence: I love the way it rides, especially when loaded; it is the perfect touring bike. But I also think it looks great, at least I do now. When I bought it, I didn't like the stem. I was expecting a stem painted to match the bike (which is what I ordered), but got a gray forgie instead. I asked why, and my sales guy said he made the change because he thought it would be better. I trusted him and I think he was right, it worked perfectly. I got used to it quickly and now think it just looks normal. (Always trust Andrew, the dude knows touring bikes).

Tandem: I love the way the tandem rides and I guess it looks fine, although I've never really thought about it that much. A tandem is such a goofy looking bike it's hard to take it seriously. It has a sloping tube, as it must, and lots of spacers, plus a positive rise stem. Co-Motion must think it is a good looking bike because they put my bike on thier cover this year (although I think that has more to do with how good looking my wife is, not the bike).

Legend: Here is the one that makes my point. I bought it used, so I didn't get to pick how it looked. It has a sloping top tube (3 degrees), which I never would have picked on my own. When I took it out of the box I was a little unsure about the slope. But I love the way the bike rides, so I don't even notice the slope anymore, it just looks right, it just looks like my bike.

It's not that I want to ride ugly bikes, or that I don't recognize a good looking bike, I just adapt to what they look like as it becomes normal to me. For me, a beautiful ride makes a bike beautiful; the characterisitcs of the ride become the characteristics of the bike. Riding brings extraordinary emotions of joy and freedom to me, which then flow directly to how I view my bike.

Bartender, another round of twizlers for my friend with the torch! Cheers! :beer:

[vaxn8r]

I think stem angle looks better when it approximates TT angle. If you have a flat TT a flat stem (80 deg) looks best. If you have 6-8 deg. slope on TT a stem with rise looks OK too (like an 84 deg.). Just a very general starting point for me on what looks "right".

I see nothing wrong with spacers. I never liked the look of quills jammed into the HT and I don't really care for a threadless stem angling forward right out of the HT. I guess to me, just like 90 deg stems or hoods angled way back, it looks a bit like you got the wrong size bike.

I agree that what actually works is waaaay more important than preconcieved ideas about how it should look. You need several positions on the bars for comfort, aerodynamics, feel when climbing out of the saddle. Tops, hoods, drops, they all need to be usable.

Anyway, one more thought. Specialized makes stems with shims that allow micro angle adjustments rather than only 2 options of upside down or right side up.

[dbrk]

I've gone on about this subject nearly ad nauseum (I too like Latin, e-richiepal!) but Climb's solution is simple: he needs a larger frame and with it will come a longer headtube. Given his saddle height and his PBH he could easily stand over a larger bike, he would have his desired bar/saddle drop (taller than on his 55cm!), match his knee position with respect to the spindle and achieve a bike that was very pleasing to the eye for its balance and proportion. Chances are that when a bike "looks right" it rides right. Remember Campagnolo NR seat posts? Remember where the max line was? Almost no "modern" frame could work with this seat post. This is because frame design has changed and, as I see it, mostly not for the better but this is not really the issue. You need not abandon modern aesthetics but you can't have it both ways: a pleasing aesthetic using fewer spacers and less rise in the stem and a smaller frame. So, it's time to get a frame that fits better your desired position. Some folks see the bike as all function but that sells short what a bicycle can be. I'm with Mr Nagasawa on this one. On a Nagasawa you'd never see a slew of spacers or a big riser stem; you see bars a few centimeters below the saddle and a kind of proportionality that gives the whole its "complete picture."

I'm not prate any more about this but to say that bikes are, for the most part, fit too small and the consequence are these spacers and stems. Standover is the most overrated (because it is the least relevant) of all measurements.

dbrk

[fiamme red]

Thanks, dbrk. Truly a voice of reason! Bikes can fit well and have a well-proportioned, classic look at the same time.

[Ken Robb]

I'm 6'1. 90cm PBH, 78-79cm saddle height and fit best on bikes 60-62cm center to center. On most of my bikes my soft parts touch the top tube if I stand with the bike perpendicular to the ground so ---I don't do that. I've ridden 64 cm bikes and 57cm bikes and if I have to ride the "wrong" size I much prefer too big over too small.

[csb]

.

[vaxn8r]

Chances are that when a bike "looks right" it rides right.
I almost always agree.


Standover is the most overrated (because it is the least relevant) of all measurements.dbrk
I could not disagree more. People worry about toe clip overlap, which I think is a small deal. But when I stop at a traffic light the last thing I want is my genitalia jammed onto the TT. If you can't straddle the bike comfortably it's too big. There are fortunately other solutions. Sloping is a good one when you need a large HT combined with a shorter ST.

[CSIRider]

Having ridden frames way too large without any pain, I am in general agreement with others who have posted responses suggesting larger frames. However, I am not confident with a wholesale acceptance of boiler plate or blanket statements that this in the panacea you need or have been looking for. (The Nitto stems Rivendell advertises would probably rectify both your and my problem, but I doubt this is what either of us are searching for).

Though I am under 5'10, I've been riding modestly priced (Trek mainly) bikes that were 57s and 58s with only an occasional back twinge. A year and a half ago I bought a 55 CSI off e-bay, mounted a 130 Salsa stem, slid the seat back as far as it would go, and almost immediately began suffering from lower back pain I'd not experienced with the larger frames.

Rather than seek a new bike, thinking I'd pushed the seat too far back (especially with the 130 stem), I did the reverse and brought it as far forward as it would go; I liked the feel. This initially seemed to boost my power output, but within days the change caused such incredible stiffness I had no choice but to try something different because my back was on the verge of severe spasm.

What I ultimately did was to try to strike a balance: rejecting the costly big bike and/or Nitto stem approach, I moved the seat forward, but not all the way. Initially, I still felt some twinges, but I resolved not to change anything until "muscle memory" whatever to hell that is kicked in.

Guess what? Weeks, perhaps months have passed now, and except for an occasional cold morning twinge that I likely would have felt even on the big bikes, I'm fine. So fine in fact, I have no intention of unloading my wonderfully designed, smooth as soft butter riding, collectors' item CSI.

As the former owner of large-framed bikes I loved riding but which, ouch, I could not straddle flatfooted straight up, I occasionally entertained doubts about whether I'd forget to hop off side saddle and thus end up singing for the Viennna Boys' Choir. Playing with a smaller frame and making adjustments made the difference. I hope this helps put the issue in perspective for you.

[andy mac]

I've gone on about this subject nearly ad nauseum (I too like Latin, e-richiepal!) but Climb's solution is simple: he needs a larger frame and with it will come a longer headtube. Given his saddle height and his PBH he could easily stand over a larger bike, he would have his desired bar/saddle drop (taller than on his 55cm!), match his knee position with respect to the spindle and achieve a bike that was very pleasing to the eye for its balance and proportion. Chances are that when a bike "looks right" it rides right. Remember Campagnolo NR seat posts? Remember where the max line was? Almost no "modern" frame could work with this seat post. This is because frame design has changed and, as I see it, mostly not for the better but this is not really the issue. You need not abandon modern aesthetics but you can't have it both ways: a pleasing aesthetic using fewer spacers and less rise in the stem and a smaller frame. So, it's time to get a frame that fits better your desired position. Some folks see the bike as all function but that sells short what a bicycle can be. I'm with Mr Nagasawa on this one. On a Nagasawa you'd never see a slew of spacers or a big riser stem; you see bars a few centimeters below the saddle and a kind of proportionality that gives the whole its "complete picture."

I'm not prate any more about this but to say that bikes are, for the most part, fit too small and the consequence are these spacers and stems. Standover is the most overrated (because it is the least relevant) of all measurements.

dbrk

really??? sounds like climb has a slew of beautiful bikes. so he should sell them all and get all new due to 'looks'??

insert some quote about more $$ than sense...

[e-RICHIE]

richie, i'd have to measure at home. but my seat is now at 76.5cm on what are basically 55cm frames. the stems i'm experimenting with are ritchey WCS 84/96 flipped up. a larger frame is one solution but i have a short torso, so i get into TT issues.

if that's 55cm c-t, i would definately stretch that seat tube.
if it's a c-c measure, i would still suggest a taller rig if, in
fact, your saddle height is correct. any rationally designed
57cm c-t frame with, say, a 56cm c-c top tube, should
allow you - the everyman - to ride with a 5cm h'bar drop,
have a reasonable length stem for that size (11cm-12cm)
an in an 84 degree shape, and be quite comfortable at that.
these general figures would NOT necessitate a stack of
spacers nor would a riser stem be needed. and - of course,
the top tube would be horizontal.
hey - thanks for scranton.

e-RICHIE©™®

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :cool:
:) :) :)

[GregLR]

Like others on this list I prefer the look of a bike that has lowish handlebars and a good amount of seat tube showing - and I have such a bike (not a Serotta). So I'd prefer not to have spacers, a riser stem or a long headtube extension.

However, when I was fitted for my Legend in the middle of last year the fit technician made some telling comments about my existing position that eventually (after several months) convinced me to set aside fashion for practicality to address neck pain that I suffer on brevet rides - and sometimes on my 15km commute. See this previous message for more explanation http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=119056&postcount=3

The resultant Legend has 4cm of headtube extension, 3cm of spacers and a fistful of seatpost showing, yet I still have 4-5 cm of clearance over the horizontal top tube when in my cycling shoes (3cm in bare feet).

So I'd have to strongly agree with Bradford's initial post that commented "I like good looking stuff, I just like things that work well a lot more. When I can have both I'm thrilled; if I can only have something that works well, that's good enough for me."

It's taken me a long time to get used to the look of the bike, but the important thing is that when I'm riding it I can't see what it looks like and it is so comfortable and rides so well even with the more upright position that I'm very grateful that the fit technician made me look beyond fashion.

Bearing in mind Jeffhall's advice to Climb, I won't post a picture of the bike just yet but the attached bikeCAD image shows the near-final design (but with narrower tube diameters than the real thing, which also has a polished ti finish). I made marginal changes at the end, such that the standover height ended up being 87cm and bar to saddle drop is 4cm.

[slowgoing]

You're about the tenth guy I know with a new s.o. who ignores the obvious and wonders why he's experiencing back pain. Hint: It ain't the bike.

[GregLR]

deleted

[Ken Robb]

if you have neck pain: do you wear precription glasses when riding?

[GregLR]

Ken

No, I don't wear prescription glasses when cycling. I'm mildly shortsighted and I have glasses for driving and watching TV/movies. I hadn't thought of that angle, ie, that the neck pain could possibly be related to eye strain.

I've read of very adverse experiences with neck pain in the quadrennial Paris-Brest-Paris 1200km brevet, causing some riders to suffer a lot of discomfort and some to abandon. So this was a big risk factor for me when contemplating attempting the last edition of the event in 2003. Fortunately in the lead up to the event I found that the on-bike exercises to which I've referred enabled me to avoid or alleviate the condition (I found the suggestion in the Ed Pavelka et al book on long distance cycling).

So I was able to keep the problem well in check in PBP, and I successfully completed the ride. But since the condition can be alleviated in this way, it led me to believe that it's bike/position related, consistent with the subsequent comments of the bike fit technician at the Serotta dealer.

GregLR

[Needs Help]

But when I stop at a traffic light the last thing I want is my genitalia jammed onto the TT. If you can't straddle the bike comfortably it's too big.
Spoken like someone who has never ridden a bike with a standover height equal to or greater than their pbh measurement!

[Climb01742]

if that's 55cm c-t, i would definately stretch that seat tube.
if it's a c-c measure, i would still suggest a taller rig if, in
fact, your saddle height is correct. any rationally designed
57cm c-t frame with, say, a 56cm c-c top tube, should
allow you - the everyman - to ride with a 5cm h'bar drop,
have a reasonable length stem for that size (11cm-12cm)
an in an 84 degree shape, and be quite comfortable at that.
these general figures would NOT necessitate a stack of
spacers nor would a riser stem be needed. and - of course,
the top tube would be horizontal.
hey - thanks for scranton.

there are three times is life when the phrase "when my number comes up" has particular meaning: at the end of life; playing the lottery; and being on your waiting list. those numbers sound very reasonable...as we may see...when my number comes up. ;)

[dbrk]

really??? sounds like climb has a slew of beautiful bikes. so he should sell them all and get all new due to 'looks'??

insert some quote about more $$ than sense...


Let me see if I can make more sense clearly enough, though I think RS did it just fine...
Climb begins the thread lamenting the aesthetic outcome of his bike primarily because he has changed his position. To keep it simple, he rides a 55cm and he wants the bars in his new position now abou 94cm from the floor. Reaching this number will in fact require (on the current 55cm) either frame spacers an/or a significant riser stem, both of which are solutions he's said he does not prefer. My conclusion is that there is only one solution to reach his bar height without the spacer/riser stem solution and that is a different, larger frame.

Exactly why this reasoning deserves denunciation for failing to have sense has nothing to do with money but it may have everything to do with the accuser. I leave it to others to decide what that might be.

On another line and starting from the beginning with fit and bike design, I would simply say that there is almost always a proper fit solution that doesn't require a slew of spacers and a riser stem. Sometimes in the most exceptional cases spacers/risers can't be avoided but those are very, very rare. Imhe too many fitters resort to such aesthetically unpleasing solutions unnecessarily. But one can learn to live or even like whatever they prefer, necessary or not.

dbrk

[e-RICHIE]

...Imhe too many fitters resort to such aesthetically unpleasing solutions unnecessarily.<cut>dbrk


agreed.
some of the explaining away of all this appeared here:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E1EF73D540C738DDDAE0894DD4044 82

[csb]

... the last thing I want is my genitalia jammed onto the TT...


i dated Gen Italia whilst in college _ talk about sweet latin roots.

[Climb01742]

Let me see if I can make more sense clearly enough, though I think RS did it just fine...
Climb begins the thread lamenting the aesthetic outcome of his bike primarily because he has changed his position. To keep it simple, he rides a 55cm and he wants the bars in his new position now abou 94cm from the floor. Reaching this number will in fact require (on the current 55cm) either frame spacers an/or a significant riser stem, both of which are solutions he's said he does not prefer. My conclusion is that there is only one solution to reach his bar height without the spacer/riser stem solution and that is a different, larger frame.

Exactly why this reasoning deserves denunciation for failing to have sense has nothing to do with money but it may have everything to do with the accuser. I leave it to others to decide what that might be.

On another line and starting from the beginning with fit and bike design, I would simply say that there is almost always a proper fit solution that doesn't require a slew of spacers and a riser stem. Sometimes in the most exceptional cases spacers/risers can't be avoided but those are very, very rare. Imhe too many fitters resort to such aesthetically unpleasing solutions unnecessarily. But one can learn to live or even like whatever they prefer, necessary or not.

dbrk

douglas, what's important is...i know where you're coming from...you're my invaluable pal.

[Fixed]

I've gone on about this subject nearly ad nauseum (I too like Latin, e-richiepal!) but Climb's solution is simple: he needs a larger frame and with it will come a longer headtube. Given his saddle height and his PBH he could easily stand over a larger bike, he would have his desired bar/saddle drop (taller than on his 55cm!), match his knee position with respect to the spindle and achieve a bike that was very pleasing to the eye for its balance and proportion. Chances are that when a bike "looks right" it rides right. Remember Campagnolo NR seat posts? Remember where the max line was? Almost no "modern" frame could work with this seat post. This is because frame design has changed and, as I see it, mostly not for the better but this is not really the issue. You need not abandon modern aesthetics but you can't have it both ways: a pleasing aesthetic using fewer spacers and less rise in the stem and a smaller frame. So, it's time to get a frame that fits better your desired position. Some folks see the bike as all function but that sells short what a bicycle can be. I'm with Mr Nagasawa on this one. On a Nagasawa you'd never see a slew of spacers or a big riser stem; you see bars a few centimeters below the saddle and a kind of proportionality that gives the whole its "complete picture."

I'm not prate any more about this but to say that bikes are, for the most part, fit too small and the consequence are these spacers and stems. Standover is the most overrated (because it is the least relevant) of all measurements.
dbrk bro I agree it's taken many years of ridin to come full circle cheers :beer:

[djg]

I almost always agree.



I could not disagree more. People worry about toe clip overlap, which I think is a small deal. But when I stop at a traffic light the last thing I want is my genitalia jammed onto the TT. If you can't straddle the bike comfortably it's too big. There are fortunately other solutions. Sloping is a good one when you need a large HT combined with a shorter ST.

But here's a trick learned by ... I dunno, every little kid who learns to ride a bike. You come to a stop. You go to put, say, your left foot down. You do this by (grownups unclip here) taking your butt off the seat, your left foot off the pedal, and leaning your bike to the left. Voila, your foot finds the ground and you've reduced the standover height of your bike by tilting it. Do this three times and it will come quite naturally.

I agree that you need to be able to mount and dismount safely. But I also agree with DBRK that some common guidelines about standover height are entirely misleading about how tall (or short) the bike needs to be to that end. For what it's worth, I can straddle the top tube on all my road bikes, two feet flat on the ground, holding the bikes as straight up and down as my estimation allows, without injuring myself. At the same time, that's just not how I stand at a stop sign or light when I do unclip and set a foot down--in that case, one foot stays clipped in, the bike is inevitably held at a tilt, and there's just tons of standover.

[Fixed]

bro don't pick on vax I bet he is a really good rider but I also bet he hasn't been on many bikes from the 80's.cheers :beer:

[andy mac]

Let me see if I can make more sense clearly enough, though I think RS did it just fine...
Climb begins the thread lamenting the aesthetic outcome of his bike primarily because he has changed his position. To keep it simple, he rides a 55cm and he wants the bars in his new position now abou 94cm from the floor. Reaching this number will in fact require (on the current 55cm) either frame spacers an/or a significant riser stem, both of which are solutions he's said he does not prefer. My conclusion is that there is only one solution to reach his bar height without the spacer/riser stem solution and that is a different, larger frame.

Exactly why this reasoning deserves denunciation for failing to have sense has nothing to do with money but it may have everything to do with the accuser. I leave it to others to decide what that might be.

On another line and starting from the beginning with fit and bike design, I would simply say that there is almost always a proper fit solution that doesn't require a slew of spacers and a riser stem. Sometimes in the most exceptional cases spacers/risers can't be avoided but those are very, very rare. Imhe too many fitters resort to such aesthetically unpleasing solutions unnecessarily. But one can learn to live or even like whatever they prefer, necessary or not.

dbrk
I see climbs initial post as looking for reassurance – ‘guys, will you hate me if I resort to spacers etc? will you still be my friends or will you look at me in disgust?’ I think he’s looking for reassurance.


Of course the best solution is to go and order all new frames. And I care about the look of a bike too, that’s why I ordered a Serotta and I’m on their website not the Trek one. But, if you can get a similar fit and save thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in his case as he has so many bikes, by using arguably less visually pleasing means, perhaps it’s the smartest approach?

US savings are at an all-time low. Bankruptcies, at an all-time high. Happiness based on snowballing consumption is a dangerous thing. I’ve seen too many people with vacation homes, german cars etc lose everything.

I guess only Climb knows if it makes sense for him financially. Back to my initial thought, my guess is that you wont hate him too much if he sports a spacer or 2.

[dvancleve]

If you are talking new frames, I think a taller headtube with a few spacers makes the most sense. If you are talking about bikes you have, you can get custom steel stems from a few builders that don't use any spacers and are typically flat/parallel to the top tube. I don't have a picture handy, but there was a Sycip at Interbike that had a stem like this (the one with moustache bars). Basically the "spacers" become part of the steerer clamp so that the stem resembles a quill stem. IMHO, if you are sure you have the height dialed these are slick... Doug


i'm curious how others feel. if you had to get your bars up to a certain height, which would you prefer:

a) riser stem
b) spacers
c) taller headtube

aesthetically, i'd vote "c". howz about youz?

[e-RICHIE]

[QUOTE=andy mac]...But, if you can get a similar fit and save thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in his case as he has so many bikes, by using arguably less visually pleasing means, perhaps it’s the smartest approach?<snipped>QUOTE]


are you suggesting that this thread is about
editting the position on all of his bicycles, or
one in particular?

[andy mac]

[QUOTE=andy mac]...But, if you can get a similar fit and save thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in his case as he has so many bikes, by using arguably less visually pleasing means, perhaps it’s the smartest approach?<snipped>QUOTE]


are you suggesting that this thread is about
editting the position on all of his bicycles, or
one in particular?

he mentions using riser stems on multiple bikes in his original posting so i guess it's not one in particular.

you guys are all way smarter than me. i'm going to chime out now. thanks for the free daily lessons, i'm learning a lot. cheers all.

[KevinK]

My Classique Ti: 52cm ctc seat tube, level top tube, 10cm exposed seatpost (round part), 1cm spacer, 12cm 80 deg. stem, 7cm drop from top of seat to top of bars. Lots of folks now days will say this is too big, and not enough seatpost is showing. To me this is the "right look" for a racing bike. When I was racing in the late 70's - early 80's, my smallest frame was a 54cm ctc, and it was custom built for me. I started racing on a 55cm frame made by Marc Denucci of Strawberry Racing Cycles.

Yeah, and I still use DT shifters....

Kevin

http://home.comcast.net/~keiko5/classique_ti.jpg

[Climb01742]

I guess only Climb knows if it makes sense for him financially. Back to my initial thought, my guess is that you wont hate him too much if he sports a spacer or 2.

andy, fear not. for the bikes i have, riser stems are the answer. i dig some too much to part with. but any new bikes in the future will be bigger and/or have taller headtubes. hey, things change. i think for most of us, positions evolve. if a few riser stems are the price of riding without pain, it's a small price.

[Jeff N.]

I don't mind the looks of a stem with a 90 degree rise or less, especially if they're custom Ti stems from the likes of Moots or Seven (Seven now makes some of the most gorgeous custom Ti stems I've ever seen). It's the ones with +6 to +10 degrees that looks "Freddy" to me. I see it all the time, Millenium stems flipped over, logo upside down...I wanna say something, but don't. I call it the "old man" position (Do you like your stem regular or old man?) . But it's just a displeasing aesthetic TO ME, and to me only. All others do as you see "fit"Jeff N.

[Ken Robb]

Yo Jeff, if you ever see me on the road and don't blow past me too fast for a peek you will see an old man with an old man riser stem on the legend or the Waterford. My other bikes have quills---big tall quills.

[tch]

That bike looks FINE to me! Yumm...

[csb]

My Classique Ti: 52cm ctc seat tube, level top tube, 10cm exposed seatpost (round part), 1cm spacer, 12cm 80 deg. stem, 7cm drop from top of seat to top of bars. Lots of folks now days will say this is too big, and not enough seatpost is showing. To me this is the "right look" for a racing bike. When I was racing in the late 70's - early 80's, my smallest frame was a 54cm ctc, and it was custom built for me. I started racing on a 55cm frame made by Marc Denucci of Strawberry Racing Cycles.

Yeah, and I still use DT shifters....

Kevin

http://home.comcast.net/~keiko5/classique_ti.jpg

could use a different seatpost

[ClutchCargo]

andy, fear not. for the bikes i have, riser stems are the answer. i dig some too much to part with. but any new bikes in the future will be bigger and/or have taller headtubes. hey, things change. i think for most of us, positions evolve. if a few riser stems are the price of riding without pain, it's a small price.

fashion hurts!
comfort or style is the age old choice, bro. ask any woman (and some men) about high heels.

so, it's your choice -- be comfy and look like bike trail Fred on his hybrid, or ride with style but endure the hurt. anyway, if you go the way of the dork, you're not gonna hear it from us, but from your weekend mates. what do they think?

[cdmc]

I will make everyone feel better about their spacers and stems. After looking at my and my wifes road bikes, anything you do will look mild in comparision. (Sorry about the non-serotta bikes, I haven't quiet made it there yet). Note the bars on my wifes bike have since been replaced with a bar like my Ritchey bars. Her bike was built from the components off of a Lemond Zurich which came with those bars.

[vaxn8r]

bro don't pick on vax I bet he is a really good rider but I also bet he hasn't been on many bikes from the 80's.cheers :beer:
Are you challengin' me dude?

Take a look at the photo galleries. I wish I was still a young pup.

Peace.

[sevencyclist]

It seems like most are saying slope of the stem should not deviate much from the slope of the top tube to give a better flow to the lines of the bike.

If most head tube angles are 73, how come I am not seeing a lot of stems with -17 degrees as we did for the old quill stems? Given that we have a lot of bikes with slopes of up to 6 degrees, we should see many stems with negative rise of -11 degrees down to -17 degrees.

However, the market seem to be flooded with stems with -6 and -5 degrees which are often flopped over to give a rise of 5 and 6 degrees. What gives?

[cdmc]

However, the market seem to be flooded with stems with -6 and -5 degrees which are often flopped over to give a rise of 5 and 6 degrees. What gives?

Short head tubes. When people ran quil stems they would have 2-3" of quil exposed and the stack height of the headsets was 40-50mm. When manufactures started going threadless, they continued to use the same headtube length and in some cases went to internal headsets, which have stack heights of only 10mm or so.

To take the most extreme example, take a frame with a 150mm headtube (about average for a 56-58 frame). With a quill stem and threaded headset, you have 150mm of headtube, plus 50mm of headset stack, plus 75mm of quill rise for a total height from the crown of the fork to the top of the quil of 275mm or approx 11". Take that same frame with a integrated headset and it is now 150mm headtube, plus 10mm of headset stack, plus a 35mm stem height (with a -17 stem) (no spacers) equals a total height from the crown of the fork to the top of the stem of 195mm or approximately 7.75 inches, a drop of 3.25" in bar height. To make up for that you either need to run 3" of spacers, a high rise stem, or a combo of both.

What really should have happened is that manufactures should have increased headtube length 25-50mm when going to threadless headsets (depending on if the headset is integrated or traditional). I believe that Serotta was one of the few manufactures that actually did this and even developed the press in headset spacer to allow for older frames to be converted to threadless and have sufficient bar rise.

Also, keep in mind that you really can't go lower than a -17 stem on a threadless bike, so manufactures have to design their frames to have the maximum saddle to bar drop that they think clients would want with a -17 stem and no spacers. You can then raise the bar height from that point by about 3" by using a combination of spacers (up to about 30-50mm depending on the fork) and high rise stems to raise the bars as needed.

[Fixed]

could use a different seatpost bro cool setup cheers :beer:

[Fixed]

Are you challengin' me dude?

Take a look at the photo galleries. I wish I was still a young pup.

Peace. bro no disrespect ment I thought I was standin up for you sorry didn't mean to hurt your feelins cheers :beer:

[jeffg]

http://www.bikefanclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=713&si=hampsten

[Samster]

that frame appears to have an extended lug
as well as spacers. that's de rigeur*.

*i love latin.

uh... isn't that french? sorry... i'm a little late to this thread.
-sam

[Fixed]

bro anyone remenber the jerks post eddy's postion vs modern riders? really good read cheers :beer:

[brianmcg321]

I just don't understand why people get so excited about these things. Spacers, no spacers; rise, no rise...

All I care about is how the bike rides and feels. All this pulling of hair and renting of clothes over the stem is confusing to me.

My thoughts exactly. Do you guys think that marathon runners have this much to talk about with their shoes?

"I like to tie mine in a double knot"

"Double knots are so stupid, only a fred would do that"

[Kevin]

Unlike OJ, with bikes the slogan is "If it fits, you must aquit." Who cares what it looks like.

Kevin