Lesser of two evils - Very tall HT or an extra 20mm of spacers?

[R332]

Calling the style police to help with my next bike purchase.

I have narrowed it down to two different frames that will both fit me well in all respects except one will get me the 'Total Stack' (frame stack + spacers) I need by using a 10mm spacer under the stem while the other will require 30mm of spacers.

Which is less ugly, a tall HT (we are talking XL frame and a ~210mm HT) with a small spacer or a slightly more normal sub-200mm HT with 30mm of spacers?

Before people freak out please know that I ride ~825mm saddle height and the stack numbers listed still give me close to 10cm of saddle-to-bar-drop.

[mwynne]

Personally I'd lean towards fewer spacers and more head tube. Especially on a big/tall bike it looks much more proportional to my eye.

[Lanternrouge]

What about the bike with the shorter head tube and a stem with zero degrees of rise?

[R332]

What about the bike with the shorter head tube and a stem with zero degrees of rise?

I hadn't considered that. My plan was to spec a standard 120mm or 130mm 6deg stem…not sure there are many lightweight, high-quality zero degree stems on the market :confused:

[unterhausen]

since standover doesn't seem to be a problem, longer head tube. Much less temptation to remove those extra spacers and throw out your back.

[Look585]

A "tall stack" stem looks really nice on a steel frame and will get you an extra ~20mm of height without "spacers". You could probably have a custom one done with 30mm.

A frame with a more normal HT length will be easier to sell, if you are worried about that.

[vqdriver]

Personally I'd lean towards fewer spacers and more head tube. Especially on a big/tall bike it looks much more proportional to my eye.

Erm, i dunno. Im the opposite.
I think the ratio of spacers to ht is not crazy when the ht is that big. The same spacer stack on a more typical 140 to 160 ht is much more obvious.

[R332]

A "tall stack" stem looks really nice on a steel frame and will get you an extra ~20mm of height without "spacers". You could probably have a custom one done with 30mm.


Should have mentioned that both frames in question are carbon. I think it looks a bit odd going from an oversized HT (both in terms of height and diameter) to a tall stack of standard thin wall carbon spacers so if I choose the frame that requires 30mm of spacers I will look for spacers with an oversize O.D.

[rustychisel]

'half and half' it. All things are proportional, you know, especially when it comes to aesthetics.

As to 0º stem: if the Easton EA90 is still made it's a fine piece of kit.

[macaroon]

I'd go for a taller head tube. Lots of spacers look rubbish, no two ways about it. A 0 degree stem also looks rubbish since they look like a riser stem when fitted to a bike with a 73 degree head angle.

I went for a long headtube, don't think it looks too bad.

https://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f261/amazing_dave/dfdff_zpsyxyhqf55.jpg

[ripvanrando]

Based upon your saddle height (assumed to be center of BB to saddle), we are about the same size although I rider a smaller frame because a 61 (xl) is too big and I can squeeze into a 58 (L).

I went with the longer head tube of the Cervelo S3 instead of the 19 mm shorter HT of the S5. I still get a bit over 10 cm of drop even with a 25 mm spacer. I don't think it looks bad but there is no way my old back could do a spacer-less S5 yielding 15 cm drop. The other factor and more important in my decision to buy the S3 was that the S3 has the thin comfortable seatstays from the R5.

I should have just said to do what is right for your fit and back not your buddies' eyes

[KidWok]

More HT. We only get older and more decrepit. You're going to need it eventually!

Tai

[Peter P.]

Get the longer headtube.

This way, should you require higher bars in the future but you've already cut the steerer for that 10mm spacer, you can simply buy a new fork with a longer steerer to gain the height back.

[soulspinner]

'half and half' it. All things are proportional, you know, especially when it comes to aesthetics.

As to 0º stem: if the Easton EA90 is still made it's a fine piece of kit.

Agree, first thing that came to mind.

[danielpack22@ma]

More HT. We only get older and more decrepit. You're going to need it eventually!

Tai

+1 on this!
This is why I've been going with a tall head tube and a -17 stem on my last few builds. I've seen too many custom bikes being sold because the owner could no longer get comfortable without using either a huge stack of spacers or a steep rise stem.

[David Tollefson]

I design frames to have one 2.5mm spacer under the stem. Taller head tube (along with a higher head tube/top tube intersection) is the better way to go.

[d_douglas]

Yes, I would second the zero degree stem as an option. Thomson X4 is a pretty awesome stem! It looks great on a CX bike, and less so on a road bike, but can look nice.

Failing that, yes, a taller HT - maybe a small extension, plus a small stack of spacers to meet middle ground?

[ERK55]

Easton EA90 stem also comes in a zero degree option.

[johnniecakes]

The taller head tube provide a support for the fork making it a supported structure. The spacers contribute to a longer unsupported mast.

[adrien]

Is the top tube relatively horizontal?

Bikes look all kind of wrong to me with big head tubes and a sloping TT. Like the Enterprise stretching as it goes into warp.

[thwart]

Lots of spacers look rubbish, no two ways about it. A 0 degree stem also looks rubbish since they look like a riser stem when fitted to a bike with a 73 degree head angle.


And the style police might also say:

Fenders look rubbish on a road bike. Especially plastic ones.

:rolleyes:

[R332]

The taller head tube provide a support for the fork making it a supported structure. The spacers contribute to a longer unsupported mast.

Excellent point! When my 80kg is hammering along in a sprint the taller HT option is probably more rigid.

The bikes in question do have sloping TTs so the tall HT might give a bit of the "...Enterprise stretching as it goes into warp." look.

[Bantamben]

Taller headtube for sure with no more than 1cm of spacers. I've found from experience too many spacers can contribute to speed wobble on a big bike. But if also recommend building it stiff. Remember even a flexy size 54 is stiffer than almost any xl 58-60 bike, and you usually have a heavier rider on those big bikes.

[tv_vt]

I like taller headtubes...

[weaponsgrade]

I'd go with the tall headtube. Maybe limit the amount of spacers to say 20mm and have the rest of the length made up by the headtube.

[bikemoore]

A fourth evil to consider: Specialized hover handlebar that puts 15mm rise in the handlebar instead of in the stem angle, spacers, or head tube. Don't shoot the messenger here. It's another option that avoids funny looking long head tubes, funny looking head tube extensions, funny looking extra spacers, and funny looking stem angles.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[baby]

Aesthetically and functionally I prefer taller headtube, less spacers.

[uber]

Another vote for the taller head tube and less spacers. I would sooner pass on buying a bike if it required more than 20mm of spacers with a down going stem. I tried to make one bike work for me with a zero rise stem. In truth, it never looked right.

[Kirk007]

Given your seat height and drop I'm guessing you are looking at around 60 cm frames? 210 mm headtube, if it has an integrated bottom bracket, isn't that tall and a 10 mm spacer is not much at all.

And 30 cm of spacers can look ok as well particularly with a minus 10 degree or more stem.

Frankly I find big frames with slammed head tubes a bit funny looking (probably cause I'll never fit such a bike with an 84 cm seat height and only 8 cm of drop.

[R332]

Given your seat height and drop I'm guessing you are looking at around 60 cm frames? 210 mm headtube, if it has an integrated bottom bracket, isn't that tall and a 10 mm spacer is not much at all.

And 30 cm of spacers can look ok as well particularly with a minus 10 degree or more stem.

Frankly I find big frames with slammed head tubes a bit funny looking (probably cause I'll never fit such a bike with an 84 cm seat height and only 8 cm of drop.

Impressive, your frame size guess is spot-on :D

<OT> On frames with tall HTs I prefer some TT slope so the seatpost has a bit more extension. I find this makes the bike appear smaller than it really is.

[Ralph]

I wouldn't decide based on "looks." Function and getting contact points right is how I would do it. With a choice, would take the taller HT.

[tigoat]

Does your option of having a longer head tube mean having it extended above the top tube? Having a long head tube extension could look just as bad as having a long stack of spacers. Assuming this is a custom frame, to properly having a longer head tube alternative in this case, the top tube must be sloped to accommodate it.

[pjmsj21]

Given your seat height and drop I'm guessing you are looking at around 60 cm frames? 210 mm headtube, if it has an integrated bottom bracket, isn't that tall and a 10 mm spacer is not much at all.

And 30 cm of spacers can look ok as well particularly with a minus 10 degree or more stem.

Frankly I find big frames with slammed head tubes a bit funny looking (probably cause I'll never fit such a bike with an 84 cm seat height and only 8 cm of drop.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment that you should look at the whole bike and keep the various sections in proportion to one another. I also agree, for the same reason, that tall head tubes and slammed bars look silly.

I would avoid sloping TT frames that require positive rise stems. To my eye the angle of the stem should match the TT angle.

[staggerwing]

To my eye the angle of the stem should match the TT angle.

While making no functional difference, I've always found matching angles to be aesthetically pleasing. By this silly rule, matching a sloping toptube can also lead to a little more bar elevation.

[Kirk007]

Impressive, your frame size guess is spot-on :D

<OT>

Yeah I've spent way to much time obsessing over this issue over the years as I have about 40-50mm more to deal with than you. If you forget aesthetics then lots of production frames can be made perfectly functional for tall riders. For example I have a 62 cm Peg Marcello with a dropped top tube and a head tube of about 23 cm. Even to me this looks unpleasing when the bike is parked in the garage. But when riding all I notice is the fabulous way the bike rides. If it was just to be admired and not ridden I'd have bought a 56 or 58 - I just don't think a big frame can match the balanced look of smaller a 56, particularly with a level top tube. But you can do pretty well, particularly with custom.

Just in case you're not already thinking about these factors: bottom bracket drop, pedal and shoe stack, degree of slope if any in top tube, reach/drop of handlebars, 86, 84, 83 or 80 degree stem -- each of these can make a few mm (even cm) difference in saddle height and bar height, giving you the contact points you need and influencing the final aesthetic. I just picked up a 63cm Colnago C50 with a 195mm head tube and it is a search for mm in order to get to as good of aesthetic as I can, but at the end of the day the drop and reach need to be where they need for me to be to enjoy the bike. That's gonna mean 30mm of spacers. But the ride is worth it and with a black sotto voce headset, black spacers and black bars on a dark frame the amount of spacers disappears a bit (at least that's what I'm telling myself ; ) ).

[bikemoore]

May also want to consider resale. A more "standard " frame layout that uses spacers, stem or handlebar rise might make the easier to sell to a wider range of potential buyers.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[reggiebaseball]

+1 on this!
This is why I've been going with a tall head tube and a -17 stem on my last few builds. I've seen too many custom bikes being sold because the owner could no longer get comfortable without using either a huge stack of spacers or a steep rise stem.

I agree with your logic, completely and have done the same.