170mm stem

124»

Comments

  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm thinking that for you it may remain unresolved, but for many others, no it's cut and dried. Electronic shifting is the clear winner and it will only get better as time passes.

    Still too expensive for me. Once the cost comes down, then I would probably go for it.

    Mind you, I still think the real future is with belt driven hub gears. :D
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Another thing Mr. Martinmentioned to me - he has to artificially ADD weight to his road bike to get it up to weight! Granted, the Cervelo frames are amongst the lightest in the peleton, but interesting to see that frame size to save weight definitely isn't an option with these guys.

    He also mentioned Garmin broke 13 frames at the Tour last year. And also that you should NOT sit down hard on the top tube of a R5ca as you're likely to snap it (as has happened far too many times apparently). Interesting insight from a top Pro!
  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    Pokerface wrote:
    Another thing Mr. Martinmentioned to me - he has to artificially ADD weight to his road bike to get it up to weight! Granted, the Cervelo frames are amongst the lightest in the peloton, but interesting to see that frame size to save weight definitely isn't an option with these guys.

    He also mentioned Garmin broke 13 frames at the Tour last year. And also that you should NOT sit down hard on the top tube of a R5ca as you're likely to snap it (as has happened far too many times apparently). Interesting insight from a top Pro!
    Its not that uncommon to add weigth to bike, many are below the legal limit. Even at the masters track they made my mate add weights to is old alu frame and he is 80 :D
    Also most of these pros are ridiculously small and even then they stress frame descending, but they get closed roads, I would not dream of descending on a top tube on UK open roads during a race, combination of over weight welsguy and bad road would probably break any top tube :D
    http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll245/oldwelshman/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    Pokerface wrote:
    UCI rules state that the handlebars must sit at least 5cm behind the centre of the front wheel hub (on a road bike).

    I'm surprised that this monster stem doesn't put the bars in a position that falls afoul of that rule. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the UCI failed to enforce one of it's own rules!
    I think it is the curved part of bars musts be max 5cm infront of hub, not behind, I fell fould of this with the 3M bars and was mde to take them off as it is impossible to make them fit, even with a 10mm stem :D
    http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll245/oldwelshman/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    oldwelshman wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    UCI rules state that the handlebars must sit at least 5cm behind the centre of the front wheel hub (on a road bike).

    I'm surprised that this monster stem doesn't put the bars in a position that falls afoul of that rule. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the UCI failed to enforce one of it's own rules!
    I think it is the curved part of bars musts be max 5cm infront of hub, not behind, I fell fould of this with the 3M bars and was mde to take them off as it is impossible to make them fit, even with a 10mm stem :D

    Just checked the rules and you are correct. It also makes a LOT more sense considering some of the positions of bars I've seen!
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    oldwelshman wrote:
    I fell fould of this with the 3M bars and was mde to take them off as it is impossible to make them fit, even with a 10mm stem :D

    Could you not have done this?

    img_0632.jpg

    Missus the bell, obviously. :wink:

Categories