Size of stem

19dm82

Can anyone tell me what length stem the xl frame with have on this bike.
http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m1b0s2p508 ... E-620-2013
Thanks.

The Northern Monkey

Google. Took me 2 mins.

80 on the M.
90 on the L.
100 on the XL.

From the manufactures website!

19dm82

The Northern Monkey wrote:

Google. Took me 2 mins.

80 on the M.
90 on the L.
100 on the XL.

From the manufactures website!

Cheers for that. I couldn't manage any where.

ilovedirt

Jeeeesus, manufacturers are still speccing 100mm stems? Why don't they just get the geometry right in the first place?...

njee20

I've only just changed from a 100mm stem (to a 90), on a medium. Short stems = current fashion, or do you think suddenly manufacturers have got geometry 'right'? I'd wager 0/20mm stems and 900mm bars are the things we'll look back at in 10 years and think WTF. 2014s Flex Stem and Disc Drive!

ilovedirt

I think mondraker are getting there with their forward geometry - the 0mm stems look weird, but the only reason stems are as long as they are is because the geometry isn't right in the first place - why else would you need to make the front of the bike so much longer? Mx riders have had 0mm stems for years.

ride_whenever

Bikes do seem to be improving with longer top tubes, shorter stems and wider bars. this article was comforting as it mirrors my thought processes on the whole thing.

njee20

Mx riders have had 0mm stems for years.

Is MX the panacea of bike design then? They also have engines. Don't really give two shits what MX bikes are doing!

Ferrals

I'd have thought the key thing is the horizontal distance between grips and front axle? which is as much due to head tube angle and fork travel/length as stem length isn't it? I don't buy into a 10mm stem length difference changing the steering that dramatically for it to be noticeable to the average joe, but I can imagine that extra distance being noticeable from a stability/weight distribution point of view.

felix.london

ride_whenever wrote:

Bikes do seem to be improving with longer top tubes, shorter stems and wider bars. this article was comforting as it mirrors my thought processes on the whole thing.

Good article. That is a seriously customised bike!

supersonic

As usual, it is what suits the rider - and what terrain they ride. I am glad there is variation between brands and geometries as it gives us choice.

And there will never be one bike that excels at everything. Yes we have better all rounders than we've ever had, but for fast xc, with lots of climbs and not so technical terrain I'll take my zaskar. With its 90mm stem.

Levi_501

130mm stems rule

rockmonkeysc

My last bike was a light, short travel xc bike and a 90mm stem felt right, helped keep the front down on steep climbs and put me in a nice position to crank away for hours.
My Mega gets ridden much harder and a 35mm stem gives a nice direct steering feel and puts me in a nice position.
You need the right set up for each bike, riding style and rider. There is no such thing as perfect geometry or set up.

ride_whenever

But who's to say these xc bikes wouldn't be better with a 35mm stem and a 55mm longer top tube?

supersonic

For me, no. I like a narrow bar. To numb the over twitchness, a longer stem helps. I have narrow shoulders and can't stand bars over 660mm.

rockmonkeysc

ride_whenever wrote:

But who's to say these xc bikes wouldn't be better with a 35mm stem and a 55mm longer top tube?

The longer stem gets your weight closer to the front wheel. A longer tt also means a longer wheel base so less nimble handling.
It has been tried by various manufacturers in the past and didn't really work.

supersonic

ride_whenever wrote:

Bikes do seem to be improving with longer top tubes, shorter stems and wider bars. this article was comforting as it mirrors my thought processes on the whole thing.

I like the guys thoughts on clutched mechs - bugger your shifting up, and buggers the suspension up.

19dm82

I've ordered the 60ml nuke proof warhead stem to go with the nukeproof bars I'll be fitting. Just waiting on pauls cycles to return my bars and grips.

paul.skibum

A longer top tube and shorter stem works for more gravity oriented bikes or for people who care specifically about the descents and dont mind having the climb compromised - for me you have to get up technical climbs so a more moderate position is important.

I like the wider bars - not super wide but I am running 730's and they feel better than my old 685's for sure.

lawman

There's definitely an element of horses for courses and rider preference when it comes to geometry and stem length. I bumped into Chris Porter and a few of the Mojo chaps at BPW t'other week and those Nicolai's are at the very extreme end of the spectrum, the wheelbase is enormous and I dread to think how it handles at slow speeds. I think somewhere in the middle is where a lot of future all-round bikes will end up, with longer top tubes, shorter 30-50mm stems and shorter seat tubes. I still think the mtb world is too hung up on road bike sizing, as Chris wrote in an article for MBR many bikes go 30-40mm bigger in the seat tube and only 20 or so mm in top tube when you go up a size and surely that should be the other way around IMO. I certainly agree that manufacturers who spec longer stems for bigger sizes are getting it all wrong and it just shows how wrong many current sizing formulas are. Mondraker are leading the way and the new SC Nomad is certainly a move in the right direction, I just hope more follow suit. In terms of the geometry of many bikes I've looked at I could probably count on one hand the number of bikes that tick all the boxes for me, without going down the custom route. The sooner things change the better if you ask me.

njee20

as Chris wrote in an article for MBR many bikes go 30-40mm bigger in the seat tube and only 20 or so mm in top tube when you go up a size and surely that should be the other way around IMO

Seriously? How on earth would that work? Unless you had 10 sizes (as on the road) you'd never get people to fit on bikes with any reasonable degree of standover, or without 400mm head tubes and 1000mm seat posts.

I'm inclined to agree (to an extent) that 'correct' stem length isn't necessarily intrinsically linked to bike size, but I don't really get people designing/buying bikes around a stem size either.

supersonic

I couldn't use a shorter seat tube on my bike - and I'm not wanting to run a 450mm post in there, the leverage on the frame is just too much.

lawman

njee20 wrote:

as Chris wrote in an article for MBR many bikes go 30-40mm bigger in the seat tube and only 20 or so mm in top tube when you go up a size and surely that should be the other way around IMO

Seriously? How on earth would that work? Unless you had 10 sizes (as on the road) you'd never get people to fit on bikes with any reasonable degree of standover, or without 400mm head tubes and 1000mm seat posts.

I'm inclined to agree (to an extent) that 'correct' stem length isn't necessarily intrinsically linked to bike size, but I don't really get people designing/buying bikes around a stem size either.

Not sure whether you've missed my point or misunderstood, I'm suggesting that seat tubes should not be increased as much when going up a size and top tubes should be increased so you get more stand over for a given size and a longer front centre. Many seat posts nowadays, particularly droppers, are 400mm+ so the need for such a long seat tube and bigger sizes is partially negated. I see many riders going up a frame size currently to get the front centre and top tube measurements they want, I'm a hair over 6ft and by that reckoning I should be on a large and yet on many companies sizing looking at the measurements I'd need an XL to get the top tube measurement I'd like, yet due to the seat tube length I can't comfortably get the saddle where I'd like with a dropper post. As I say with many posts now being longer, is there really a need for towering seat tubes akin to those of our road compatriots? In my opinion there isn't. All it should roughly take at a simple level is the toptube of a given size and the seat tube of the size lower down, for example medium seat tube grafted to the top tube of a large.

While this could be argued to be largely specific to trail bikes this categorisation of bikes is likely the biggest seller so is applicable to a huge section of the market.

njee20

Not sure whether you've missed my point or misunderstood, I'm suggesting that seat tubes should not be increased as much when going up a size and top tubes should be increased so you get more stand over for a given size and a longer front centre. Many seat posts nowadays, particularly droppers, are 400mm+ so the need for such a long seat tube and bigger sizes is partially negated. I see many riders going up a frame size currently to get the front centre and top tube measurements they want, I'm a hair over 6ft and by that reckoning I should be on a large and yet on many companies sizing looking at the measurements I'd need an XL to get the top tube measurement I'd like, yet due to the seat tube length I can't comfortably get the saddle where I'd like with a dropper post.

I'm thinking more holisitically. You aren't going to cater for a full range of sizes if you only have (as per your example) 80mm of seat tube variance between small and XL frames, unless you do very odd things to cater for those at the extremes.

supersonic

Yes, going too much the other way will just be as bad for as many people, if not more.

Levi_501

I am not overly keen on bars over 600mm wide. The biggest problem with narrow bars is fitting everything on them!

rockmonkeysc

supersonic wrote:

I couldn't use a shorter seat tube on my bike - and I'm not wanting to run a 450mm post in there, the leverage on the frame is just too much.

I have the same problem with some of the latest trail/AM bikes. Large frames now seem to have 18" seat tubes which is just too short. If I use 400+mm seat posts they just bend.

lawman

I think more than anything it's personal preference. As I say for me the shorter seat tube/ longer top tube idea is great but perhaps not ideal for certain body shapes or riding styles. Sonic and Njee are both very xc based riders so you're both going to have different preferences to someone who rides more aggresive trails. Fortunately there's plenty of choice for many people, but I certainly see trail bike geometry in particular changing over the next couple of years

Thewaylander

You mean catching up with certain bike makes

njee20

I think more than anything it's personal preference. As I say for me the shorter seat tube/ longer top tube idea is great but perhaps not ideal for certain body shapes or riding styles

Of course it is, hence comments about geometry being "right", are stupid. But long top tubes and short seat tubes will not work across a whole range, unless you have a huge number of sizes (which manufacturers will be reticent to do obviously). Nothing to do with riding style. As Rockmonkey says longer seat tubes are more prone to bending, will also put more force on the top tube/seat tube junction, so more likely to get failures etc. An uninterrupted seat tube makes more sense from a design perspective. If you can fit your Reverb in, and get over the aesthetics of not having much post sticking out then the seat tube length is immaterial.

Angus Young

Who'd have thought that a conversation about stems could be so interesting. Do I need to get out more?