170mm stem

frenchfighter

It may even be 200m

FransJacques

Holy crap.

Forget the stem for a second, I'd love to see a side-on shot of Kasheckhin in the drops to get an idea of why he needs it...

thejimmymethod

FransJacques wrote:

Holy crap.

Forget the stem for a second, I'd love to see a side-on shot of Kasheckhin in the drops to get an idea of why he needs it...

Best I could find:

Pokerface

One can only assume that he choses to ride a frame 1-2 sizes too small for him (in order to save weight?) and thus needs a super-long stem.

A rider of normal proportions should never be on a stem that long. If you're over 6 and half feet tall or have stupidly-long torso - then maybe but otherwise, no.

secretsqirrel

FransJacques wrote:

It's Kashekin's stem. He's had it for yonks, it was custom made by FSA hence why his mechanic stripped the paint when he moved to Saxo Bank.

Poke-her face (:-D) I heard that comment y'day during the TofT and I wonder if they made a mistake. A 190mm stem is ridiculous...

Saxo Bank? Thinking of Kreuziger maybe? :?

Here is Kash on his bike at the Tour of Turkey. Small frame, but doesn't look too much like a comedy bike.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=500876096633563&set=pb.108407849213725.-2207520000.1367087921.&type=3&theater

Pokerface

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Here is Kash on his bike at the Tour of Turkey. Small frame, but doesn't look too much like a comedy bike.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=500876096633563&set=pb.108407849213725.-2207520000.1367087921.&type=3&theater

I still think the frame looks way too small for him - but whatever works for him. Must have his reasons for riding that way - and for many years.

prawny

Probably fits in the car better having a small frame, saves buying a rack

dennisn

Kind of interesting seeing this pro on what can only be described as an ill fitting bike. He doesn't have to have a bike like that and yet he does, and I'm sure more than a few other pro's are also riding frames too small or whatever.
Funny thing about it is that many people write in asking about bike fit, frame size, etc. and the forum experts are very quick to point out that these people need " a longer top tube" "a more relaxed seat tube angle" "a 500 dollar bike fitting"
"longer cranks" "a longer head tube" " less spacers" "more spacers". I could go on but you get my drift? Here, staring all these experts right in the face, is a pro rider who can ride anything he wants yet chooses to pay no attention to this forum's know it all frame fitters. :roll:

angrynortherner

Serious question though, how much force is he shoving through the steerer tube with the leverage that a stem of that length much create? I'm not sure I'd wanna be hammering down the Alps riding a carbon steerer and stressing it excessively!

dennisn

AngryNortherner wrote:

Serious question though, how much force is he shoving through the steerer tube with the leverage that a stem of that length much create? I'm not sure I'd wanna be hammering down the Alps riding a carbon steerer and stressing it excessively!

That sort of brings up the question of why do most people assume that a carbon steer tube is anywhere near being fragile? What person would buy a bike with a not so strong steer tube? And why are pro's any better or worse at "stressing" some bike part than us mere mortals?

k-dog

dennisn wrote:

What person would buy a bike with a not so strong steer tube? And why are pro's any better or worse at "stressing" some bike part than us mere mortals?

The second part of that is easy - they produce a lot more power than most of us and they do a much bigger mileage. Simples.

greasedscotsman

Pokerface wrote:

One can only assume that he choses to ride a frame 1-2 sizes too small for him (in order to save weight?) and thus needs a super-long stem.

I thought bikes in UCI events had to weight a minimum of 6.8kg?

deejay

Post deleted as the answer is on page 2

dennisn

k-dog wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What person would buy a bike with a not so strong steer tube? And why are pro's any better or worse at "stressing" some bike part than us mere mortals?

The second part of that is easy - they produce a lot more power than most of us and they do a much bigger mileage. Simples.

I disagree. If I hit a pothole or rut in the road I can guarantee that my 200+ pounds will put a whole lot more stress
on a bike, any bike, than any Alberto Contador type out there. Just me sitting on a bike puts more stress on a frame than AC does.

dennisn

greasedscotsman wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

One can only assume that he choses to ride a frame 1-2 sizes too small for him (in order to save weight?) and thus needs a super-long stem.

I thought bikes in UCI events had to weight a minimum of 6.8kg?

I was thinking that myself. Of course a smaller frame would be stiffer(at least that's the conventional thinking), and that could be a factor.

Pokerface

greasedscotsman wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

One can only assume that he choses to ride a frame 1-2 sizes too small for him (in order to save weight?) and thus needs a super-long stem.

I thought bikes in UCI events had to weight a minimum of 6.8kg?

Of course. But depending on the bike and components, you may not hit that lower limit with a larger size frame. Not saying that's the case here but it IS with other bikes. Eg, SRM and Di2 on a bike is heavier than SRAM Red and Quarq.

(They look to be running Campag EPS on that bike which WOULD be heavier than a mechanical group set).

As I also said - I'm sure there are reasons. And that set up works for him.

Yellow Peril

I'm sure it works for the rider, but I wouldn't recommend it as an ideal set up generally. I would imagine its length puts a lot of strain on the top of the steerer tube (moments about a point and all that) when under load. Stem and bar failures produce horrendous accidents and if this was the way forward they'd be hanging in your LBS.

greasedscotsman

Pokerface wrote:

Of course. But depending on the bike and components, you may not hit that lower limit with a larger size frame. Not saying that's the case here but it IS with other bikes. Eg, SRM and Di2 on a bike is heavier than SRAM Red and Quarq.

(They look to be running Campag EPS on that bike which WOULD be heavier than a mechanical group set).

As I also said - I'm sure there are reasons. And that set up works for him.

So why not just run a mechanical groupset? I find it hard to believe that a rider would use a bike maybe up to 2 sizes too small just to have EPS/Di2. And wouldn't there also be other riders on the same team doing the same thing?

I'm sure there are reasons, but I don't think weight is it. He probably does like the way it handles, it probably is as simple as that. Alot of pros do seem to run smaller frames, as Dennisn says they are probably a bit stiffer.

mroli

greasedscotsman wrote:

So why not just run a mechanical groupset?

Its a good point - why does anyone not run a mechanical groupset? What are the electronic advantages? They are heavier, have another "risk" to them in relation to the electronics and the battery. The only advantage I can see is automatic self-trimming (not so much of an issue in the pro-peloton where you have a mechanic setting it up perfectly, every day) and possibly faster shifts. A great incentive is the fact that Campag and Shimano will be pushing pro-teams to use it so they can flog more to every day punters.

No co-incidence that Sky are going back to Shimano mechanical for the Giro?

Daz555

mroli wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

So why not just run a mechanical groupset?

Its a good point - why does anyone not run a mechanical groupset? What are the electronic advantages? They are heavier, have another "risk" to them in relation to the electronics and the battery. The only advantage I can see is automatic self-trimming (not so much of an issue in the pro-peloton where you have a mechanic setting it up perfectly, every day) and possibly faster shifts. A great incentive is the fact that Campag and Shimano will be pushing pro-teams to use it so they can flog more to every day punters.

No co-incidence that Sky are going back to Shimano mechanical for the Giro?

Weight is not a concern as the bikes need to be artificially brought up to the min weight anyway.

greasedscotsman

Would be interesting to see what kit riders would use if the weight limit was removed. Wonder how many would use Di2/EPS or power meters?

Pokerface

mroli wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

So why not just run a mechanical groupset?

Its a good point - why does anyone not run a mechanical groupset? What are the electronic advantages? They are heavier, have another "risk" to them in relation to the electronics and the battery. The only advantage I can see is automatic self-trimming (not so much of an issue in the pro-peloton where you have a mechanic setting it up perfectly, every day) and possibly faster shifts. A great incentive is the fact that Campag and Shimano will be pushing pro-teams to use it so they can flog more to every day punters.

No co-incidence that Sky are going back to Shimano mechanical for the Giro?

Having used both mechanical and electronic, I can safely say that I won't be going back to mechanical by choice ever again.

Heavier? Yes - on the low (Ultegra) end. Go to Dura Ace and the weight disadvantage disappears.
Battery running out? Only if you're a complete idiot. You get multiple warnings. And it wouldn't happen to a 'Pro' bike where the batteries are charged regularly.
Shifting problems? Less likely with electronic than with cables. No stretch. No rust. No breakage. You CAN fix shifting problems yourself, whilst riding, if you need to.

I like the fact my shifting works right. Every time. THis was never the case with my mechanical bikes. I can shift out of the saddle. I can change ONE gear up or down with ease.

It's particularly a good set-up on TT bikes where you don't want to be flipping levers up and down all the time.

People read too much into problems one particular Pro rider may or may not have had with his electronic shifting. Let's face it - just as many Pros (if not MORE) have had problems with mechanical shifting.

And - is the entire Sky team now using mechanical shifting?

mroli

Just for the giro I think - I read it somewhere.

I have a mate who had external EPS running on his bike. He dropped a chain (I know - should be impossible right) and sliced through a cable which stopped rear changes. He then got Shimano electric and had a problem (can't remember what it was - great story eh?). Also saw Fran Millar talking about going for a ride and then finding her Shim battery was dead so she didn't. But take the point about "pro" batteries in races never being dead.

Didn't say anything about shifting problems - think they would be faster and possibly more accurate with electronic - but again, cable stretch, rust not a problem for pros. I have never heard of someone breaking a gear cable? Also - don't know what you were using before electronic, but using Sram, I can not remember missing a gear, or having any problems going up or down one gear, I can also shift out of the saddle - but years of conditioning means I tend not to!

Take the point re TT levers - but they have mechanical "self centring" shifters now don't they?

For my style of riding (occasional crit racing, long rides, club rides etc), mechanical does me fine and I can fix pretty much any problem that I have with the bike (have a recabling job to do today). For what you do (high end competition, but without constant mechanic support) - I can imagine the performance advantages you detail may help. For the pros (constant mechanical support), I reckon there is probably negligible difference?

dennisn

If you look at it from another angle maybe, just maybe all this "bike fit" stuff that people pay good money for is just cycling's version of golf stuff that promises to take 10 strokes off your game. Doesn't really work but bunches of people want to believe in it and are willing to try and "buy" better performance. Lots of people spending lots of money on fitting their bike and very few of them are going faster or climbing better. :?

mroli

not just about climbing faster/quicker though is it? I think some bike fits are renowned not for putting you in a more aerodynamic/efficient position, but putting you in a position where you can ride comfortably without putting your body through undue stress.

greasedscotsman

Pokerface wrote:

Having used both mechanical and electronic, I can safely say that I won't be going back to mechanical by choice ever again.

Heavier? Yes - on the low (Ultegra) end. Go to Dura Ace and the weight disadvantage disappears.
Battery running out? Only if you're a complete idiot. You get multiple warnings. And it wouldn't happen to a 'Pro' bike where the batteries are charged regularly.
Shifting problems? Less likely with electronic than with cables. No stretch. No rust. No breakage. You CAN fix shifting problems yourself, whilst riding, if you need to.

I like the fact my shifting works right. Every time. THis was never the case with my mechanical bikes. I can shift out of the saddle. I can change ONE gear up or down with ease.

It's particularly a good set-up on TT bikes where you don't want to be flipping levers up and down all the time.

People read too much into problems one particular Pro rider may or may not have had with his electronic shifting. Let's face it - just as many Pros (if not MORE) have had problems with mechanical shifting.

And - is the entire Sky team now using mechanical shifting?

There is too much being made of one particular failure of an electronic system, but I think you are exaggerating some of the advantages and disadvantages. One gear up or down out of the saddle? Rust? Cables breaking? And as Mroli says, these just aren't going to be problems for a pro rider (they aren't really problems for the amateur rider).

And are you saying that Dura Ace Di2 weighs the same as mechanical Dura Ace? Surely if all the components weigh the same and they do share alot of parts, you still have a battery with Di2.

I can see an advantage with using Di2/EPS on a TT bike if you can have multiple shifting points. Mind you, it's then funny that Brad Wiggins has been using a mechincal system on his TT bike for some time. OK, this is down to the UCI regulations on the length of aerobars. But it does show, as far as he's concerned, that "bike fit" is more important to him than how quick his rear mech is.

greasedscotsman

dennisn wrote:

If you look at it from another angle maybe, just maybe all this "bike fit" stuff that people pay good money for is just cycling's version of golf stuff that promises to take 10 strokes off your game. Doesn't really work but bunches of people want to believe in it and are willing to try and "buy" better performance. Lots of people spending lots of money on fitting their bike and very few of them are going faster or climbing better. :?

But how much faster would he be if he was on the right sized bike?

k-dog

greasedscotsman wrote:

And are you saying that Dura Ace Di2 weighs the same as mechanical Dura Ace? Surely if all the components weigh the same and they do share alot of parts, you still have a battery with Di2.

Shimano say that the new Di2 weighs 2047g compared to 2072g of the mechanical. I would assume that they're comparing the same things as the cassettes and chainsets are the same. Sure, the battery weighs something (and that weight is the new internal battery) but cables and springs and stuff weigh quite a bit so you're swapping one for the other.

greasedscotsman

k-dog wrote:

Shimano say that the new Di2 weighs 2047g compared to 2072g of the mechanical. I would assume that they're comparing the same things as the cassettes and chainsets are the same. Sure, the battery weighs something (and that weight is the new internal battery) but cables and springs and stuff weigh quite a bit so you're swapping one for the other.

Really? I am suprised at that. So a rider won't be using a smaller frame due to the groupset weighing more, well not with Shimano anyway.

mroli

Sky had to shave weight off of the Dogma as well didn't they?

From the Bike Radar review:

Pinarello's latest Dogma might be lighter than its predecessor, but it's still a bit heavier than some other modern super bikes. Our accelerated test period didn't allow time for our usual teardown procedures, but Pinarello claims 920g for a "raw" 54cm sample.

Add in the bike's typically generous coats of flashy paint plus the requisite derailleur hangers and seatpost collar and you're easily over the 1kg (2.2lb) mark. In addition, the requisite fork comes in at about 370g, and the proprietary carbon fiber seatpost isn't particularly svelte at nearly 200g.

Again from Bikeradar - this is G's bike at the TdU:

Total weight falls at the upper end of the peloton, with the bike tipping the scales at 7.76kg (17.11lb) with the computer head

So a smaller frame would be saving you "legal" weight (on a dogma at least). Wiggins rides with a 140cm stem: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/tour-pro-bike-bradley-wiggins-pinarello-dogma2-a-bike-that-flies_230060