Integrated stems....

The Rookie

Anyone else read the article in March's MBUk on integrated stems (title is stem cell research....)
A number of benefits are claimed, persoanlly I think they are tosh, here is why
1/ Integrating he stem into the head tube makes for a compact front end......er no, its still the height of the headtube plus the height of the stem, may be visually more compact, but that is all it is, visuals
2/ This promotes more attacking riding....er no, stem is no lower, it still sits the height of the head tube (which is set by the necesity of having the bearings far enough apart to work) off the fork crown
3/ Helps increase stiffness and steering precision....er how, steerer goes through head tube, stem attaches on top, the fact the top tube is behind rather than below it doesn't improve stiffness, in fact arguably it reduces it as the overlap of top tube to headtube is reduced.

I think its marketing/looks based, if you like it great, but as an engineering improvement - nope.

Thoughts?

Simon

nicklouse

The Beginner wrote:

Anyone else read the article in March's MBUk on integrated stems (title is stem cell research....)
A number of benefits are claimed, persoanlly I think they are tosh, here is why
1/ Integrating he stem into the head tube makes for a compact front end......er no, its still the height of the headtube plus the height of the stem, may be visually more compact, but that is all it is, visuals
2/ This promotes more attacking riding....er no, stem is no lower, it still sits the height of the head tube (which is set by the necesity of having the bearings far enough apart to work) off the fork crown
3/ Helps increase stiffness and steering precision....er how, steerer goes through head tube, stem attaches on top, the fact the top tube is behind rather than below it doesn't improve stiffness, in fact arguably it reduces it as the overlap of top tube to headtube is reduced.

I think its marketing/looks based, if you like it great, but as an engineering improvement - nope.

Thoughts?

Simon

i think you may have got some words mixed up.

what you say would have no steerering.

Integrating he stem into the head tube

but as i have not seen the artical who knows what is going on.

Monkeypump

The Beginner wrote:

Anyone else read the article in March's MBUk on integrated stems (title is stem cell research....)
A number of benefits are claimed, persoanlly I think they are tosh, here is why
1/ Integrating he stem into the head tube makes for a compact front end......er no, its still the height of the headtube plus the height of the stem, may be visually more compact, but that is all it is, visuals
2/ This promotes more attacking riding....er no, stem is no lower, it still sits the height of the head tube (which is set by the necesity of having the bearings far enough apart to work) off the fork crown
3/ Helps increase stiffness and steering precision....er how, steerer goes through head tube, stem attaches on top, the fact the top tube is behind rather than below it doesn't improve stiffness, in fact arguably it reduces it as the overlap of top tube to headtube is reduced.

I think its marketing/looks based, if you like it great, but as an engineering improvement - nope.

Thoughts?

Simon

Are these your thoughts as an engineer? They just seem to be half-baked opinions.

benpinnick

The Beginner wrote:

Anyone else read the article in March's MBUk on integrated stems (title is stem cell research....)
A number of benefits are claimed, persoanlly I think they are tosh, here is why
1/ Integrating he stem into the head tube makes for a compact front end......er no, its still the height of the headtube plus the height of the stem, may be visually more compact, but that is all it is, visuals
2/ This promotes more attacking riding....er no, stem is no lower, it still sits the height of the head tube (which is set by the necesity of having the bearings far enough apart to work) off the fork crown
3/ Helps increase stiffness and steering precision....er how, steerer goes through head tube, stem attaches on top, the fact the top tube is behind rather than below it doesn't improve stiffness, in fact arguably it reduces it as the overlap of top tube to headtube is reduced.

I think its marketing/looks based, if you like it great, but as an engineering improvement - nope.

Thoughts?

Simon

I see your point. Essentially what you're saying is that all they have done is reduced the head-tube height, and added a stem that fits exactly with the space left. If short steerer tubes made sense, surely everyone would be making them as small as possible? All it really gives you is a few grams of weight saving. What might make more sense would be to have the top race above the stem, giving you stiffness and compactness in 1 (unless thats actually what they've done?) Not quite sure how you'd make this work mind!

nicklouse

so a totally new integrated stem design that is nothing like the integrated stem design that has been arround for the last 10 years?

The Rookie

Monkeypump wrote:

Are these your thoughts as an engineer? They just seem to be half-baked opinions.

Yes, I am a qualified engineer and been working as one for 23 years....

Nick,
Here is the Look one as featured in the article mentioned above
http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/04/01/new ... e-spotted/

The integration is visual/aerodynamic (? doubtful benefit on an MTB), the top tube is raised up behind the stem, but the headtube itself is logically the same height as it would (or could) be on a 'conventional' frame as it's dictated by the seperation requirements of the bearings.

Simon

nicklouse

Ahhhhh a worse worse situation in all counts.

To keep something the same you have to lose something.

The Rookie

Uhuh, imho it's a styling/marketing gimmick, small loss of stiffness in frame due to the reduced overlap of top and head tube, no real gain of any sort, the new Mondraker HT has it as well.

Simon

nicklouse

The Beginner wrote:

Uhuh, imho it's a styling/marketing gimmick, small loss of stiffness in frame due to the reduced overlap of top and head tube, no real gain of any sort, the new Mondraker HT has it as well.

Simon

And I you keep the bearing width and bar height then the frame mass is increased and stand over is lost.

Loving it.

The Rookie

Here's the Mondy' Podium review from the end of last year
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/m ... look-32753

I have thought of a benefit, less risk to face or Jewels if you crash as the stem no longer sticks up.....doesn't sound worth the payoff to me!

Simon

oodboo

Yeah, when I read it I thought "what a load of bollocks". I've become very sceptical of a lot of the stuff they write.

The Rookie

Rehashing marketing releases into a technical article without getting a proper technical assessment is common practice in the press, you get it in motoring mags a lot as well (my employed field unless or until Spesh/Trek/Lapierre etc offer me a job - LOL).

Simon

neiltb

marketing hype, differentiation. might be of use to a TTer but on an MTB, no. It can't be done for looks either.

The Rookie

A quick review of dimensions

The Look 920 has a headtube for tapered steerer and is 125mm high, the on-one carbon 456 has a head tube for tapered steerer and a headtube length of 90mm, the 920 only takes 120mm forks versus the 456's 150mm.

Far from making it more compact and stiffer, it seems to make it bigger and weaker, also you have less scope for adjusting bar height via the stem, all round a lose, lose scenario unless you like the appearence (no!).

Simon

benpinnick

fork option has little to do with steerer length - its a combination of frame geometry and how much fibre they build around the head-tube that counts. Also, a bike manufacturer will rate the bike to the shortest fork they think the market will bear (or conversely the longest that it will demand) in order to minimise warranty and maximise sales. Still a crap idea though.

prawny

Just looks like a stem from a time trial bike. I have no opinion.

The Rookie

Interestingly Mondarkers website calls it 'integrated stem technology' I'd kind of like to ask them what 'technology' is in there!

Ironically on the podium, I do like the use of matt black to make the seatpost tube 'invisible' Ok it is just paint, but that works for me!

Simon