Longer toptube or Stem?

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

Unfortunately, all other things cannot be equal. With
identical seattube and headtube angles, the longer top tube
will give the bike a longer wheelbase, affecting its
handling characteristics, its ride smoothness, etc. If the
longer top tube is on a bike with the same wheelbase, it
will change the frame angles, again changing the handling
and ride characteristics. So you have to play those
characteristics off against each other as well.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

Bestest Handsander said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

Thanks

Well, there's not much difference in that example, but an
8cm stem on a 23" frame looks wrong, as does a 14cm stem on
a 19" frame. If the top tube length is correct for you, you
should be at the same end of the stem size range as the
frame size range, if that makes any sense.

Someone who wished to conceal his or her secret identity said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

If you have an oddball stem length, handling can suffer to
some extent, due to the relationship between your hands and
the steering axis.

Weight distribution will also change, because the longer the
top tube, the farther forward the front wheel is.

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars, I'd
consider 120 to be the upper limit for "normal" stems, and
130 to be a bit over the line into the "oddball" region, so
I'd go for the longer top tube.

If you're talking about a mountain bike, 130 is a fairly
medium stem extension, but so is 120.

Sheldon "Fitz" Brown +-------------------------------------------
+
| Good judgment comes from experience, | and experience
| comes from bad judgment. | --Fred Brook |
+-------------------------------------------+ Harris
Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX
617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗
sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bestest Handsander said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

On a road bike I'd take the latter.

--Paul

"Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130

stem

Quoted message said:

or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

Personally, I would take the 58+13 combo, as it would slow
down the steering and put more weight on the front wheel.
However, your preference could easily be different.

Andy Coggan

[email hidden] (Paul Southworth) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bestest

Handsander said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to
get to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for
example a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and
120 stem?

On a road bike I'd take the latter.

I second that. If you are in great shape and limber,
then 59 and 13
cm. Even for smaller pro riders, I often see the use of 13
cm (and VERY low).

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars, I'd
consider 120 to be the upper limit for "normal" stems, and
130 to be a bit over the line into the "oddball" region,
so I'd go for the longer top tube.

Scope out some pics of eurodog road racers...lots and lots
and lots of 13+ cm stems used by this crowd.

Andy Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars, I'd
consider 120 to be the upper limit for "normal" stems,
and 130 to be a bit over the line into the "oddball"
region, so I'd go for the longer top tube.

Scope out some pics of eurodog road racers...lots and lots
and lots of 13+ cm stems used by this crowd.

Andy Coggan

Yeah, but they're 18-20-somethings with 0% body fat too!

Personal opinion says make the bike fit with between a 100-
120mm stem. Anything less handling gets a little strange.
Anything more, ditto. (Sez the guy what used to ride a 140mm
stem on his 88 Rockhopper. Can you say "tiller?"😉

HTH,

M

If you draft a lot, long stem puts you closer to draftee. I
personally like the shorter stem to allow higher braking
rates by reducing weight transfer to the front. High speed
downhilling and late braking is one path to performance. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Andy Coggan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bestest Handsander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get to your ideal
reach lenght... would you prefer for example a 58cm top tube and a 130

stem

Quoted message said:

or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

Personally, I would take the 58+13 combo, as it would slow down the

steering

Quoted message said:

and put more weight on the front wheel. However, your preference could
easily be different.

Andy Coggan

Bestest Handsander said:

Provided all other things are equal (setback, etc.) to get
to your ideal reach lenght... would you prefer for example
a 58cm top tube and a 130 stem or a 59cm top and 120 stem?

Thanks

130cm stem with 58cm toptube. Why? Because the steering axis
is moved back 1cm closer.

MOO, Matt

Sheldon Brown said:

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars, I'd
consider 120 to be the upper limit for "normal" stems, and
130 to be a bit over the line into the "oddball" region,

Why is this?

John Verheul

This "conventional wisdom" went out the door with aluminum
stems, where flex was a bigger issue. Indeed, even in the
late 80s and early 90s, it was hard to find stems more than
120mm in length, and even 120mm stems would flex wildly when
sprinting in the drops. However, given the advent of steel
stems, and then oversized threadless stems, flex is no
longer a significant problem, and it is perfectly fine to
use a longer stem.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't advocate using a 130mm
stem on a 51 cm bike. But there is nothing at all wrong with
using a longer stem on a larger frame. Indeed, contrary to
what some might suggest, a 130mm stem simply does not
"oversteer" when installed on a 57, or 59cm frame. Even if
it did, you'd soon get used to it and compensate
accordingly. The main issue is bike fit and confort, and
assuming your frame is properly sized, if that takes a 130cm
stem, that's fine!

"John Verheul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown said:

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars, I'd
consider 120 to be the upper limit for "normal" stems,
and 130 to be a bit over the line into the "oddball"
region,

Why is this?

John Verheul

"SDMike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8K3hc.23815$L75.17799@fed1read06...

Quoted message said:

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message ne-
ws:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you're talking about a bike with drop handlebars,
I'd consider 120

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be the upper limit for "normal" stems, and 130 to be a
bit over the

line

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

into the "oddball" region, so I'd go for the longer
top tube.

Scope out some pics of eurodog road racers...lots and
lots and lots of

13+

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cm stems used by this crowd.

Andy Coggan

Yeah, but they're 18-20-somethings with 0% body fat too!

I'm not, but I still use a 13 cm stem on my over-square 56
cm Cervelo Soloist, and a 14 cm stem on my under-square 54
cm Specialized Allez Comp.

Andy ("if the stem fits, use it"😉 Coggan

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This "conventional wisdom" went out the door with aluminum
stems, where

flex

Quoted message said:

was a bigger issue. Indeed, even in the late 80s and early
90s, it was

hard

Quoted message said:

to find stems more than 120mm in length,

I don't think this is true, since I was using nothing but
130 and 140 stems (pretty much all Cinelli 1/A) in the late
'80s and early '90s, as were several of my teammates at the
time. I don't recall them being particularly hard to find.

Quoted message said:

and even 120mm stems would flex wildly when sprinting in
the drops.

Again, not my recollection. I mean, everything back then
flexed a bit more...bars, skinny-tubed frames...the stem was
just part of the system. Certainly whatever flex was there
didn't pose a problem, no one was ever nervous about
sprinting, we just raced our bikes.

So I'm still wondering (particularly from Sheldon) why stems

Quoted message said:

120 are oddball. The majority of racers who are over maybe

5'10" all seem to use stems >120, why shouldn't we?

John Verheul

Doug said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed, even in the late 80s and early 90s, it was hard to
find stems more than 120mm in length,

John Verheul responded:

Quoted message said:

I don't think this is true, since I was using nothing but
130 and 140 stems (pretty much all Cinelli 1/A) in the
late '80s and early '90s, as were several of my teammates
at the time. I don't recall them being particularly hard
to find.

Those sizes were available in Cinelli and TTT, but
nothing else.

Quoted message said:

So I'm still wondering (particularly from Sheldon) why
stems >120 are oddball. The majority of racers who are
over maybe 5'10" all seem to use stems >120, why
shouldn't we?

There's a current fad for racers to use undersized frames.

Also, as another poster noted in this thread, using a
shorter top tube with a longer stem, and thus moving the
front wheel backward, allows closer drafting.

Another fad is to use super-short chainstays. Shortening the
front center helps preserve normal weight disrtibution
despite the short chainstays.

However, folks who have been reading my postings for a while
will know that I am not a racing-oriented guy. Racing is a
teeny corner of the cycling world, and racers are a
minuscule minority of cyclists. What works well for racers
does _not_ necessarily apply to mainstream cyclists, anymore
than formula 1 automobile technology applies to the design
of family sedans.

Sheldon "Long Wheelbase Is Good" Brown +----------------------------------------------------------
+
| I have to mention how wary I am whenever I read bike |
| reviews which talk about how great some bike handled |
| the instant the rider mounted up. | If the bike
| immediately feels right, it's most likely | because it
| handles very similarly to whatever the | rider most
| recently rode. | I have bikes that I have ridden
| thousands of miles, | that handle and perform flawlessly.
| Yet if I've been | riding something different, like the
| tandem (especially | captaining) or my commuter with a
| heavy saddle bag or | pannier and then hop back on my
| sporty single, I spend | the first mile or so hardly able
| to get out of the | saddle. I'm all over the road. I
| would swear the bike | has been chopped in half. But
| within a short time, | everything is back to normal, and
| my trusty old bike | is handling great again. --Pamela
| Blalock |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone 617-244-
9772 FAX 617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find
parts shipped Worldwide captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗
sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

Sheldon Brown said:

If you're talking about a mountain bike, 130 is a fairly
medium stem extension, but so is 120.

That's opposite of my findings as I have been shopping for a
MTB over the past month or so. Back in the day (early
'90's), MTB stems were commonly as long as you say. But now,
the top tubes seem to have grown much longer and stems
accordingly shorter.

According to the guys at my LBS, who are all avid MTB
riders, this is a good change. I've only ridden one MTB with
the "Genesis" geometry that's currently popular, and I
didn't like it.

Sheldon, tell me I'm looking in all the wrong places. :^)
I'd still like to test ride an MTB with the shorter top tube
and longer stem.

--
Dave dvt at psu dot edu

In article <[email hidden]>,

Derk said:

When I was measured by Merckx he recommended me a 58.5 cm
tob tube, whilst others told me to get a 57 cm top tube.
That way one can have a shorter stem and a bike that feels
less nervous.

I would have thought that the *longer* stem would feel less
nervous--turning the steerer would require a larger motion
at the ends of the handlebars, so that steering would be
less sensitive to small "twitchy" motions.

When I bought a mountain bike last summer, I looked for one
that would not require leaning excessively (for me) far
forward, but still allow use of a reasonably long stem
rather than one <10 cm long.

--
Ned Mantei Department of Cell Biology, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland

"John Verheul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to find stems more than 120mm in length,

I don't think this is true, since I was using nothing but
130 and 140

stems

Quoted message said:

(pretty much all Cinelli 1/A) in the late '80s and early
'90s, as were several of my teammates at the time. I don't
recall them being

particularly

Quoted message said:

hard to find.

I always had to scour long and hard for 130mm stems. I
didn't recall that Cinelli came in 140mm length. I find this
surprizing. I wouldn't think that a forged Aluminum stem of
that length would be particularly strong.

Quoted message said:

Again, not my recollection. I mean, everything back then
flexed a bit more...bars, skinny-tubed frames...the stem
was just part of the system. Certainly whatever flex was
there didn't pose a problem, no one was ever nervous about
sprinting, we just raced our bikes.

I remember a 3T setup I once had -- anatomic bars and a
130mm stem. I could literally deflect the bars almost an
inch in either direction just by pushing and pulling on the
ends of the drops. The combination of the Cinelli deep drop
bar and the 1/A stem was somewhat better, but still no
where close to the TIG-welded steel stems or todays
threadless AL stems.

I've always been a lot bigger (and slower) than you though,
and I break almost everything that I touch.

Quoted message said:

Certainly whatever flex was there didn't pose a >problem,
no one was ever nervous about sprinting, we just raced
our bikes.

I don't disagree. It was what it was, no one knew better,
and we all dealt with it. But I sure was happy when Salsa
and others started selling welded steel stems!

It all depends on what you are going to use the bike for. If
it's for racing, and it's a normal size frame (57-60), I
would get a size that allows me to use a 130mm stem. If it's
not for racing, I would get a bigger frame and a shorter
stem. The bigger frame would have a longer head tube that
would allow the bars to be higher without a large amount of
spacers. The old "smaller is better" idea on frame size was
fine when everybody used quill stems. The people who get
small frames now, (because of threadless stems) are forced
to use large amounts of spacers. If you have 2 cm of spacers
or more, you've bought the wrong bike or framesize. Some
frame builders make frames with shorter top tubes. This
forces you to get a larger frame size. This also puts your
bars higher.