140mm Stem
Comments
-
If these long stems are "the norm" then why do Specialized put 100's on in the first place? Maybe because it's better (in some ways) especially for those of us who want a fast but balanced bike we can pedal all day? I'm 1.78m and was advised a 54 with 120 stem on account of my arm length (my span is 1.85m) but nearly crashed it because it was so small and low - I'd go as far as to say it was unrideable. I now have a Tarmac SL4 Sport (the Ferrari red one) in a 56 with the stock stem and have had no handling issues at all - it feels the same length as my last bike which was a 55 with 120 stem. With the taller head tube of the 56 I can remove spacers and, when I get round to it, might even be able to slam the stem down to the top cap (and surely anyone wanting to size down would try and source a smaller one of these too).
I actually think this proves that bikes have got bigger over time. The other day I saw a geometry chart from the 1960s when all bikes were more aggressive than even the Venges of today, so less head tube (4 inches in some cases) meant more reach again. At my height I'd have been out on a tiny 21 inch (53cm) frame - I can't think of anything more painful! Maybe that's how big records were set over 50 mile TT's - because the positions were dialled in perfectly for aerodynamics but not for all day comfort. Something to consider when deciding exactly what you want your n+1 to be used for perhaps (as in road racing/occasional TT/triathlon or sportive use at a more relaxed pace). Choices, choices I guess.........0 -
I am having no problem using 140mm stems and do not know why they have fallen out of fashion.
The only time that I noticed a problem with my 140mm stem was with front wheel breaking downhill. Applying the breaks creates a bit of wheel judder. The judder can effect ones pull on the break level, creating a feedback loop that results in more judder, and this effect is magnified with a longer stem, at speed. I don't race so I just go a bit slower, and slow down at first using predominantly the rear break.It seems to me that on the contrary the longer stem is otherwise provides more relaxed handling and is less twitchy as one would expect. If doing downhill mountain biking and needed twitchily quick response to terrain irregularities or twists in the trail, then a short stem would be good. But on a road bike, the longer stem allows for more leisurely and precise steering around (generally) wide-radius road corners.
In retrospect I would get a bigger frame but a LBS recommended 54 (I am just shy of 5'10" I think) and I went with that in my subsequent two purchases before I became better informed.
What I do notice is that there used to be lots of 140mm stems of the v-shaped quill variety, and the non-oversized 1" bar variety.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cycling-/7294/i ... em&_sop=15
So in the past people used to use 140mm stems quite a lot. When one factors in the fact that more than one pro uses a 140mm stem, I wonder whether it is that folks prefer not to be as long and low as they did due to increasing waist sizes?
140mm stems can be very expensive (100USD for a piece of tube). I almost consider replacing my handlebars with old 1" ones to take advantage of all those cheap long stems on ebay etc.0 -
Remember they had external headsets so add that to the headtube length.PianoMan wrote:If these long stems are "the norm" then why do Specialized put 100's on in the first place? Maybe because it's better (in some ways) especially for those of us who want a fast but balanced bike we can pedal all day? I'm 1.78m and was advised a 54 with 120 stem on account of my arm length (my span is 1.85m) but nearly crashed it because it was so small and low - I'd go as far as to say it was unrideable. I now have a Tarmac SL4 Sport (the Ferrari red one) in a 56 with the stock stem and have had no handling issues at all - it feels the same length as my last bike which was a 55 with 120 stem. With the taller head tube of the 56 I can remove spacers and, when I get round to it, might even be able to slam the stem down to the top cap (and surely anyone wanting to size down would try and source a smaller one of these too).
I actually think this proves that bikes have got bigger over time. The other day I saw a geometry chart from the 1960s when all bikes were more aggressive than even the Venges of today, so less head tube (4 inches in some cases) meant more reach again. At my height I'd have been out on a tiny 21 inch (53cm) frame - I can't think of anything more painful! Maybe that's how big records were set over 50 mile TT's - because the positions were dialled in perfectly for aerodynamics but not for all day comfort. Something to consider when deciding exactly what you want your n+1 to be used for perhaps (as in road racing/occasional TT/triathlon or sportive use at a more relaxed pace). Choices, choices I guess.........Pegoretti
Colnago
Cervelo
Campagnolo0 -
Im 5'9 ride a 51 cervelo r5 with a 140 3t arx team stem.
Would recommend0 -
54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).0
-
darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?0 -
6wheels wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?
What measurement is setback?0 -
styxd wrote:6wheels wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?
What measurement is setback?
Setback isn't a frame measurement, its a seat post thing- how far the saddle is "set back" from the seat post centre.
Effective top tube length is a good measurement for a frame *but* you have to consider seat tube angle as well. A steeper seat tube angle of say 1 degree needs a 1cm shorter effective top tube length to give the same overall "reach" to the bars. For me, I know I want a 545mm eTT with a 73.5 deg seat tube angle.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
drlodge wrote:styxd wrote:6wheels wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?
What measurement is setback?
Setback isn't a frame measurement, its a seat post thing- how far the saddle is "set back" from the seat post centre.
Effective top tube length is a good measurement for a frame *but* you have to consider seat tube angle as well. A steeper seat tube angle of say 1 degree needs a 1cm shorter effective top tube length to give the same overall "reach" to the bars. For me, I know I want a 545mm eTT with a 73.5 deg seat tube angle.
Or you could fit a longer stem?0 -
styxd wrote:drlodge wrote:styxd wrote:6wheels wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?
What measurement is setback?
Setback isn't a frame measurement, its a seat post thing- how far the saddle is "set back" from the seat post centre.
Effective top tube length is a good measurement for a frame *but* you have to consider seat tube angle as well. A steeper seat tube angle of say 1 degree needs a 1cm shorter effective top tube length to give the same overall "reach" to the bars. For me, I know I want a 545mm eTT with a 73.5 deg seat tube angle.
Or you could fit a longer stem?
Yes within reason, but the stem is not part of the frame ;-) Perhaps I should have said: 545mm with 73.5deg STA (and 110mm stem). I don't want a longer eTT than 545mm since I then need to use a shorter stem and a 100mm stem makes the ride a bit twitchy. And if I need to go to a smaller frame to get the shorter eTT, I then have a problem with a too-short head tube, making the saddle-bars drop too much.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
drlodge wrote:styxd wrote:drlodge wrote:styxd wrote:6wheels wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:54, 56, 58 what-ever. These numbers are rather meaningless when going from bike to bike. the only measurements transferable for frame comparison are stack and reach (possibly effective top tube length IF measured correctly).
Setback?
What measurement is setback?
Setback isn't a frame measurement, its a seat post thing- how far the saddle is "set back" from the seat post centre.
Effective top tube length is a good measurement for a frame *but* you have to consider seat tube angle as well. A steeper seat tube angle of say 1 degree needs a 1cm shorter effective top tube length to give the same overall "reach" to the bars. For me, I know I want a 545mm eTT with a 73.5 deg seat tube angle.
Or you could fit a longer stem?
Yes within reason, but the stem is not part of the frame ;-) Perhaps I should have said: 545mm with 73.5deg STA (and 110mm stem). I don't want a longer eTT than 545mm since I then need to use a shorter stem and a 100mm stem makes the ride a bit twitchy. And if I need to go to a smaller frame to get the shorter eTT, I then have a problem with a too-short head tube, making the saddle-bars drop too much.
It's pretty simple really if you think about the geometry from a fit perspective.
position of your butt relative to feet is the relationship between the saddle and the bottom bracket. this is set by your seat tube angle and adjusted by the seatpost height and set back! The angle is largely irrelevant since getting the bike to fit involves adjusting the height and set back. Next is where your mitts end up, this is set by the effective toptube length, sort of, and stem (not part of the frame). If you want to setup any measurements you need a common datum and we have already started at the bottom bracket to get the saddle height and set back correct so we can just measure from there again. This yields our Reach and of course the Stack! So we can now locate geometry of contact points from the bottom bracket. A short head tube will give a short stack, but actually depends upon the fork, headset and bottom bracket height. Your body doesn't care what the angles are or what the lengths of the tubes are, only that the contact points are in the correct place. A bit either way on the reach can be dialled out with the stem, stack of course depends upon the riders flexibility and if they can live with the shame of not slamming their stem.
I'm no expert, just stating the bleedin' obvious!0 -
I have just got myself a new frameset - Kinesis Aithein. It's a 53cm and the Kinesis size chart quotes 5' 5" to 5' 9".
But the effective top tube is 55cm, and the headtube is 14cm, and takes a integrated headset which adds another 1.5cm on to the stack. And given that I have 2.5cm layback on my seat, and require a 8cm saddle to handlebar drop, it should be pretty much spot on with a 130mm stem.
BTW, I'm 6' 1".
But have short legs and a long torso so usually have to go a size or 2 down.0
