Please explain long stems??

[MrJacques]

There is a perception that a shorter stem is better for lower back issues. This isn't really the case. Since I’ve gone for a longer stem I’m more stretched out and flatter instead of hunched and upright. My back is much happier for it.

 

One of the main reasons I put a longer stem on my bike. I don't ride very technical terrain, so haven't noticed major handling issues yet, but for my next bike I'll probably go for something with a longer top tube and shorter stem.

[Bianchisti]

I've had to put a longer stem on my bike due to it's geometry and fit because it has a shorter than average toptube. I'm one of those guys that fit between a medium and large, so based on comments so far would it be better then to go for a large frame and put on a shorter stem with wide bars?

 

With my bike set-up few weeks ago i was told my frame is "almost too small" and had therefore had to go with a longer stem (130). I find that I ride with locked elbows most of the time and have to "bend" forward to angle the elbows. With the set-up we also raised my saddle by 3cm or so it feels like my hands are to low when they on the drops. been looking at upsizing the frame now. I was borderline between med/large on the frame charts.

[david16v]

And if you need long stem to compensate for a too-short top tube, you've got the wrong sized bike. Pure and simple.

 

Above statement is totally incorrect.

Once a rider has been setup correctly (in my case through Jeroen Swart) he/she will dictate frame size, saddle height, saddle setback, reach, etc.

My reach needed to be 605mm, GIANT frame (effective top tube) are 595mm for medium and 615mm for large. I had a medium frame which meant I needed a 110mm stem to achieve the measurement listed above.

Edited December 31, 2012 by david16v

[Leg breaker]

I have a 70 mm stem. Just because my bikes frame is a little big. I'm guessing that makes me more un-aerodynamic ?? Now i have a new excuse for not being able to keep up with people on the downhills

[Agteros]

I have a 70 mm stem. Just because my bikes frame is a little big. I'm guessing that makes me more un-aerodynamic ?? Now i have a new excuse for not being able to keep up with people on the downhills

Running a short stem and long top tube vs a short(er) top tube and a long stem should word out to pretty much the same thing, bar handling...

Just drop the handlebars if you are concerned about not being aero enough. If your knees hit your chin, consider lifting the stem again

[Iwan Kemp]

Above statement is totally incorrect.

Once a rider has been setup correctly (in my case through Jeroen Swart) he/she will dictate frame size, saddle height, saddle setback, reach, etc.

My reach needed to be 605mm, GIANT frame (effective top tube) are 595mm for medium and 615mm for large. I had a medium frame which meant I needed a 110mm stem to achieve the measurement listed above.

 

Computer says "no".

 

This whole way of measuring is still based on what we knew in the 90's / early 2000. Mountain biking and the way a bike gets set up has moved on. It also greatly depends on the type of riding you do and then even more on the terrain you ride.

 

In your case Jeroen Swart, whoever that is, could be right. But using the same method could be completely wrong for the next guy. What you need is a set up person who has experience of ALL riding styles. That way he / she can draw on personal experience earned in real life and apply it to you. Computer and theory only gets you there 80%. Rest is QBE knowledge and a deeper, greater understanding of riding as a whole.

 

Maybe Jeroen is that type of guy / girl. Also not sure about your math. Reach = 605, but 595 + 110 = 705mm. Probably just a typing mistake. If so, then going with the Large and a 90mm stem will have given you a greatly better handling bike for a wider variety of terrain. (615 + 90 = 705). Assuming that standover would still have worked for you.

[RockCoach]

I think people are very confused here between types of riding and stem length. Road and MTBs have completely different set ups.

 

Longs stems are for road racing and mostly used by taller riders. I am 185cm and the stem on my road bike is 120 - 130mm (large frame) - the bars are roughly 100mm lower than my saddle. I had back surgery when I was 16 but I still managed to become flexible enough to race comfortably like that. A tall friend of mine used a 150mm stem on one of his road bikes. You need to be as aerodynamic as possible when you race.

 

Short stems are generally for DH, freeride, and some trail riding. I use either a 60 or a 80mm on the trail bike depending on the type of terrain.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Above statement is totally incorrect.

Once a rider has been setup correctly (in my case through Jeroen Swart) he/she will dictate frame size, saddle height, saddle setback, reach, etc.

My reach needed to be 605mm, GIANT frame (effective top tube) are 595mm for medium and 615mm for large. I had a medium frame which meant I needed a 110mm stem to achieve the measurement listed above.

 

To add to what Crow said, Jeroen's set-up is catering to the XC race crowd, where total power output is reliant on a particular position on a bike, and he doesn't really worry about things like handling and control - more on the FIT side of things.

 

What we are talking about here is predominately HANDLING and the impact a longer stem has on the bike's characteristics. If you are riding jeeptrack, then the stem length & bar width shouldn't make that much of a difference and you CAN get away with a 100 - 150mm stem (dunno why you'd want to though) but as soon as things get more interesting, a long stem becomes a very dangerous thing to have on your bike.

[Johan Bornman]

Non pros do it because the pros do it.

 

 

The quote of the month?

[Iwan Kemp]

The quote of the month?

Quite possibly of 2012!

[david16v]

In your case Jeroen Swart, whoever that is, could be right.

 

This made me laugh!

He's Burry Standers personal coach!

 

Once you have been for the correct setup then you and the rest of the crowd will realise that it's not as simple as reducing/increasing stem length as you see fit, it comes down to the correct setup!

[david16v]

as soon as things get more interesting, a long stem becomes a very dangerous thing to have on your bike.

 

I still think that this is not entirely true.

Burry Stander (XC rider) has an extremely long stem as this suits his kind of riding according to Jeroen Swart. The London Olympic course looked extremely tough! His handling of the bike along with Niño Shurters seemed fine!

 

Check the following link:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/04/mtb/pro-bike-gallery-burry-standers-specialized-stumpjumper-29er_252212

Edited December 31, 2012 by david16v

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

 

This made me laugh!

He's Burry Standers personal coach!

 

Once you have been for the correct setup then you and the rest of the crowd will realise that it's not as simple as reducing/increasing stem length as you see fit, it comes down to the correct setup!

 

This is the burning question though - the correct setup for WHAT?! An xc race setup would be totally different to an am setup and that in turn would be even more far removed from a dh setup. Road setup is for ultimate pedalling efficiency, where handling is not a priority. Stem length matters less.

 

Xc race setup is then less focussed on efficiency, but still highly efficiency weighted. Low and fast position, less technical handling etc.

 

For an am / trail bike (which delilah rides, btw) a long stem is a complete no no. Handling takes supreme pride of place, with pedalling efficiency taking a back seat. What does that mean? Short stem, wide bars.

 

Once again - the bike fit okes cater specifically to the xc / road race crowd, especially here in RSA where enduro riding / trail riding is not nearly as popular as it should be, and everyone thinks that they're Burry or Yaroslav.

 

Last line - stop thinking in terms of absolutes. An xc setup CANNOT be translated to an AM bike - you will sacrifice handling and maneuvrability, place more weight on the front and be cuckolding yourself in an attempt to be "racy"

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

 

I still think that this is not entirely true.

Burry Stander (XC rider) has an extremely long stem as this suits his kind of riding according to Jeroen Swart. The London Olympic course looked extremely tough! His handling of the bike along with Niño Shurters seemed fine!

 

Check the following link:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/04/mtb/pro-bike-gallery-burry-standers-specialized-stumpjumper-29er_252212

 

Again - xc racing, where pedalling efficiency is the ultimate goal. Ys, they have long stems. Doesn't mean you should. They are focussed on climbing, threshold efforts and wattage. Not handling as the ultimate - they try to get handling as good as possible while retaining pedalling efficiency - much the same as road racing.

 

In all other disciplines, handling takes the hot seat.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Btw - my bike is set up perfectly for me - large giant reign x, ETT of 610mm. Stem is 35mm zero degree rise, bars are 760mm wide. If the stem were any longer, I'd be too far over the front and handling would be compromised. I have an almost direct input on to the wheel direction, and I am "stretched" enough to enable me to do linger efforts (4 hours plus) on the bike without sacrificing descending capability or comfort.

[nolipoli]

I have just changed my stem on my Reign from a 50mm to a 70mm length. This is specifically to aid climbing as the front end gets a little light sometimes. I guess that the trade-off is climbing versus handling (including jumping stability), and everyone will find their own comfort zone.