Stem length on small frame

[Aspen]

I ride about a size 50-51cm frame, top tube of 52.5-53cm currently with a 110cm stem but like being more stretched out with a 120cm. It doesn't seem to change the handling of the bike but it seems longer than what I see most frames of that size with. Any downsides? Any reasons to not just go with it or do I need to be on a slightly larger frame?

Opinions of the forum framebuilders are particularly welcomed.

[regularguy412]

I'm no frame builder, but I have ridden a few different bikes in the last 17 years. As I was just entering the 'real' cyclist market, I just took whatever came on the frame size that 'fit' me. Those stems were generally 90 - 100 mm. When I purchased my Serotta, I discovered that I really felt best with a 120 mm stem. From my experiences, I think it comes down to how you fit on the bike, relative to the top tube length and the extra reach built into the bar. I'm average height, 5 ft 8. However, I have a short waist for my height and (relatively) long arms (34"). Seems like the longer stem stretches me just enough to let me breathe better when on the hoods. I say if it feels good and you aren't 'too' hung out over the front wheel, DO IT.

Mike in AR

[Lanternrouge]

I ride about a size 50-51cm frame, top tube of 52.5-53cm currently with a 110cm stem but like being more stretched out with a 120cm. It doesn't seem to change the handling of the bike but it seems longer than what I see most frames of that size with. Any downsides? Any reasons to not just go with it or do I need to be on a slightly larger frame?

Opinions of the forum framebuilders are particularly welcomed.

I ride about the same size and use stems ranging from 110mm-130mm depending on the bike. I think a lot of manufacturers tend to put short stems on small bikes, even though they already have short top tubes. I see no reason not to go to a longer stem if it's more comfortable for you.

If you have a really cool bike, just sell it to me cheaply and buy one with a longer top tube :D

[cs124]

Not a frame builder either...but I ride exactly the same size frame as you.

120mm stems work fine for me.

[Peter P.]

There are really too many variables to consider, but if you're content with that stem length and you have no fit problems, then the length is fine.

However, some framebuilders and some fitting formulas look for a certain weight distribution (front wheel vs. rear wheel) and your stem length IS uncommonly long for your frame size. Those builders/formulas would try to provide you the same position but by using a longer top tube and shorter stem. Your setup changes the steering to outside the norm and puts more weight out over the front wheel, but not necessarily in a bad way.

I would say see if you can borrow a bike one size up from yours with a similar top tube+stem total length and see if the change feels better. Better if it's a compact geometry because you short guys are usually more in need of crotch clearance and a compact frame can provide it while having the longer top tube you want to test.

[Smiley]

+1 for Peter's take which is what I would prescribe too to.

[RPS]

I ride about a size 50-51cm frame, top tube of 52.5-53cm currently with a 110cm stem but like being more stretched out with a 120cm. It doesn't seem to change the handling of the bike but it seems longer than what I see most frames of that size with. Any downsides? Any reasons to not just go with it or do I need to be on a slightly larger frame?

Opinions of the forum framebuilders are particularly welcomed.Aspen, I’ll express my 2 cents from a slightly different perspective (not that I disagree with what has been stated).

A major reason we see short stems on very small bikes is out of necessity, not because they look or necessarily “handle” better; hence I wouldn’t compare your needs to most small sizes as if their setup is inherently more correct than yours.

If a builder was faced with a small bike that had a combined top tube + stem length of say 60 CM as an example, he would tend to use a higher TT-to-stem ratio in order to keep the front wheel from being too close to the BBKT (partly due to toe overlap on small frames). We would likely see a 52 CM top tube with an 8 CM stem before we would see a 50 top tube with 10 stem or a 48 top tube with 12 stem. This opinion is based on a bike with 700 wheels.

Strictly from a proportional standpoint (not that there is much of it in bike design), a 12 CM stem on a small frame with a 53 TT is not much different that a 13 CM on a large frame with a 57 CM TT. Additionally, since you are dealing with an existing frame with fixed dimensions, if your only goal is to stretch out by moving the bars 1 CM further forward and you will keep the saddle in the same location, the impact on weight distribution will be small – insignificant for most riders IMHO – since the bulk of your weight won’t be shifted forward. However, as stated above by others, if you were looking at a new frame, I would at that time consider a longer top tube.

[Grant McLean]

My size is very close to yours. I have bikes with top tubes varying from 53 to 54.5,
with various other geometry differences, and stems from 10 - to 11 cm.

One thing that is not always "optimal" about bikes with 52.5 or 53.0cm toptubes
is they have to cheat to get a reasonably long front center, by using a slack head angle.

If you like the way your bike handles, then that's great, and try a longer stem.
In my experience, I have found that I really prefer a longer front center, steaper
head angle and more fork rake than normally found on a frame like a 51 x 53.

So instead to 53 top 12 stem with a 72 head angle, I'd choose 54 top 11 stem, 73 head angle.
Everything should fit the same, just the way it handles will be different.

g