Longer stems is an advantage???

Debateable but I recommend matching the stem length to your comfortable reach. If you are all stretched out all the time you won't be comfortable.
Fit is most important.

Longer stems are an advantage in the case where a longer stem gives you a better fit.

Emp said:

Hi peoples,I would like to ask that is longer stems is an advantage for riders???At my club,people says that it feels different when climbing.Longer stems feels like the rider is controlling the bike.Shorter stems feels the opposite.Is that a lil bit true??😕

I'd rather have a longer top tube and a shorter stem to eliminate toe overlap.

Of course, stem length affects handling. However, it depends whether you are trying to retrofit a not-ideal, off-the-peg bike to your size, or whether the stem is part of an overall plan how you decide on length.

Ideally, you will fit the bike properly from the get-go.

Ok.Thx for the info sharing guys.So longer top tube with a shorter stem is better than a shorter top tube with a longer stem.🙄

Emp said:

So longer top tube with a shorter stem is better than a shorter top tube with a longer stem.🙄

Yes, I would agree with that statement in terms of a properly fitted bicycle.

In other words, if the bicycle frame is the correct size for you, most people who are of average build will not need, or see any performance gains, by using a non-standard length stem.

Now, if the bike you have has a frame that is too small for you, then a longer stem might help the overall fit.

Or maybe the frame is the correct size for you, but you have an unusual body build, like your arms are exceptionally long and your legs are normal length, then a longer stem might be needed to get the best fit.

If the bike fits you perfectly, IMHO adding a longer stem would make your riding experience worse, not better.

Longer stems are an advantage in the case where a longer stem gives you a better fit. [img]meiguozhuji.net6.gifOpen ↗[/img]

First you have to have a proper fit, no debate on that.

How you arrive there could be up for debate. Assuming I could get properly fit on a 54 with more seat post showing and a longer stem or a 56 with shorter stem and less seatpost. All other things being equal I personally prefer a 54 with longer stem.

For me the more compact I can get the frame the better. I feel the bike handles better and is more responsive.

Toe overlap is a non-issue in my book, I lean to turn, I hardly ever move my handlebars more then a tiny bit unless it is at a very slow speed and sharp turn. Then I am smart enough to pedal backward and get my foot out of the way.😉

FWIW, I've read that pro cyclists (primarily sprinters, i.e. Cipollini, Boonen, et al) use smaller frames (than ideal for their size) and run longish (130mm+) stems because the smaller frame is theoretically (and probably, actually) stiffer than the "correct" size frame for that individual. There is also a weight "penalty" associated with the "correct" size (aka larger) frame versus the smaller frame.

So, I don't think the prevailing wisdom is that the longer stem is the advantage, it's presumably the shorter frame giving the perceived advantage.

Take a look at some photos of pro bikes and you will see some longish stems...some regular stems too, and probably some relatively short ones as well...

I would agree with stiff being advantageous over floppy, but I think shorter and thicker would provide greater stiffness than longer. For best results, I think one's stem should be just long enough to reach the place it needs to -- anything more is wasted weight.

You just get the stem that provides the correct reach on your frame. That's it. Stem weight isn't going to affect performance one bit.

Hmm....so both got its advantage.By the way guys,when we riding with hands on hoods,we look down on the wheels and saw the hub is in front of the handlebar.Is that considered we need a longer stem or it is considered normal??😕

Emp said:

Hmm....so both got its advantage.By the way guys,when we riding with hands on hoods,we look down on the wheels and saw the hub is in front of the handlebar.Is that considered we need a longer stem or it is considered normal??😕

It's an old rule of thumb that doesn't really apply.

Alright thx.I got your point now.😄

alienator said:

It's an old rule of thumb that doesn't really apply.

Right-o. I go with the 90-degree angle from the humerus to the torso guideline. Where that puts the bar in relation to the line of sight to the front hub is secondary.

tonyzackery said:

FWIW, I've read that pro cyclists (primarily sprinters, i.e. Cipollini, Boonen, et al) use smaller frames (than ideal for their size) and run longish (130mm+) stems because the smaller frame is theoretically (and probably, actually) stiffer than the "correct" size frame for that individual. There is also a weight "penalty" associated with the "correct" size (aka larger) frame versus the smaller frame.

So, I don't think the prevailing wisdom is that the longer stem is the advantage, it's presumably the shorter frame giving the perceived advantage.

Take a look at some photos of pro bikes and you will see some longish stems...some regular stems too, and probably some relatively short ones as well...

That might have been true back in Cipos day but these days when you have frames that are too stiff Remember the boron/carbon frame that Armstrong rode in 05 that none of the other Disco boys would ride? How 'bout the silly stiff frames from Isaac. The trend seems to be going to frames with bottom bracket areas looking as solid as bridge stanchions than the elegant designs of a decade or more ago... Carbon frames are so light now that it's possible to build something really stiff, like the latest Cannondale with good parts at way under the UCI weight limit - and that's without resorting to $5,000+ wheels and titanium and carbon everything.

swampy1970 said:

That might have been true back in Cipos day but these days when you have frames that are too stiff Remember the boron/carbon frame that Armstrong rode in 05 that none of the other Disco boys would ride? How 'bout the silly stiff frames from Isaac. The trend seems to be going to frames with bottom bracket areas looking as solid as bridge stanchions than the elegant designs of a decade or more ago...

Yup. The sheep are being fed stiffness in bucket loads. Buyers just keep thinkin', "Well, it's stiffer so it must be better." Stiffness hasn't been a problem in a long time. In fact, for the last 12 years, no one has been up Alpe d'Huez faster than Marco Pantani. Yet in that time, bikes have gone from steel to aluminum to CF. The people that drink the stiffness koolaid say you need a stiff bike to climb well. Judging by the record books, stiffness made sod all difference.

swampy1970 said:

That might have been true back in Cipos day but these days when you have frames that are too stiff Remember the boron/carbon frame that Armstrong rode in 05 that none of the other Disco boys would ride? How 'bout the silly stiff frames from Isaac. The trend seems to be going to frames with bottom bracket areas looking as solid as bridge stanchions than the elegant designs of a decade or more ago... Carbon frames are so light now that it's possible to build something really stiff, like the latest Cannondale with good parts at way under the UCI weight limit - and that's without resorting to $5,000+ wheels and titanium and carbon everything.

Cipo's bike that he rode with Rock last year...not necessarily "back in the day"...

Regardless, I get the gist of the point you're making. "Too stiff"? It's all relatively, my friend. By the sounds of it, where you'd hate the Isaac, I'd love it - just can't afford one. Us bigger, heavier, and sometimes more powerful guys tend (not saying exclusively) to gravitate towards the stiffer frames while the smaller, lighter guys complain they're harsh, etc...to each his/her own...

tonyzackery said:

Cipo's bike that he rode with Rock last year...

Wow, that guy's got a really stiff, powerful-looking stem. The Italian girls must swoon when they see that thing coming.

Heh, I like the "lightweight" carbon wheels. So, do y'all think those would be a big advantage? 😉