# Down country stem length



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

What’s everyone’s thoughts on a good sized stem length for a downcountry/trail bike??

I know it’s personal preference I respect to geo and bike fit bit what’s everyone’s thoughts on an ideal length?

Riding XC with a 90mm stem and going back to a 40mm stem is a strange feeling. Both bikes are of similar geo so would a compromise of a 60mm stem seem adequate or will this affect the handling too much do you think?

The way I see it is I’m used to XC so a shorter stem will still give a trail feel even if it’s longer than what’s normal.

Looking forward to everyone’s opinion!!


----------



## robbbery (Jan 12, 2021)

What exactly is your situation? You are considering replacing the stem on your xc bike with a 60mm?


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

Sorry should have written it better.
Got a new 120mm trail bike which comes with a 40mm stem.

Xc is what I’m used to with a 90mm stem.

Trail bike feels weird...will a 60-70mm stem be too long for a trail bike?


----------



## robbbery (Jan 12, 2021)

Oh gotcha! Hmm, I don't think anyone but you (and maybe a trained bike fitter) could say what's "right" or "too long." Certainly nothing wrong with a 60-70mm stem if that's what feels good to your particular body on your particular bike. Plus, stems are cheap and easy to change so go nuts experimenting.

But also how long have you had the bike? It does seem natural that it would take a little while to get used to the new geometry, fit, riding position, etc., so you may find that you end up liking the short stem eventually. Only time (and more experimenting) will tell.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Aim for between 40-55mm stem length based on fit and comfort.

Those long stems weren't such a problem when bars were super narrow but with wide bars and a long stem you get a really wide and awkward steering ark. It's like steering one of those little motor boats with the stick used to turn the motor. The longer stem is like a longer stick requiring larger and larger swings as the stick becomes longer.


----------



## malucky (Mar 7, 2015)

Suns_PSD said:


> Aim for between 40-55mm stem length based on fit and comfort.
> 
> Those long stems weren't such a problem when bars were super narrow but with wide bars and a long stem you get a really wide and awkward steering ark. It's like steering one of those little motor boats with the stick used to turn the motor. The longer stem is like a longer stick requiring larger and larger swings as the stick becomes longer.


Totally agree! I couldn't stand the longer stem and wider bar combination. I had a 800mm / 60mm Bar/Stem, and to me, the steering felt slow and odd, with a lot of movement to do just a little turning. That might be good to slow down fast steering response and allow for some precision on downhill bikes, but didn't make me happy on my general purpose trail bike. I settled for a moderate bar (760mm) and short stem (35mm). It just felt better to me.

Outside of competition, bar and stem length are a personal-fit thing. Run what makes you more comfortable and confident. After all, what's the point to pleasure riding if you hate the ride?


----------



## almazing (Jul 26, 2017)

50 for my DC bikes which is what most DC bike maker specs their bikes with. They have slacker HAs and have longer front centers and reach compared to traditional XC bikes. And your weight is generally a bit further back regardless of stem choice. I like being able to load the front wheel and it’s harder to do that with a short stem. 

I’m a regular average sized person though so I fit most bikes in my preferred size without making dramatic changes. I know taller people are more likely to use longer stems for ergonomic purposes and short people might use shorter stems to fit their bikes better. 

+\- 10mm of stem length specced by the manufacturer on any given bike is a good starting point. Geometry for the most part is pretty optimized these days. Going from a 50mm to a 90mm stem may cause undesired handling changes. Conversely, going from a 50mm to a 30mm stem might seem rad at first, but can cause issues with loading the front wheel when cornering causing you to understeer while cornering. I guess the moral of the story here is don’t make any extreme changes to your bike.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

That word, the pain, make it stop!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

WTH is a "downcountry stem"?


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

LockyA said:


> Trail bike feels weird...will a 60-70mm stem be too long for a trail bike?


No, it won't. Try the 70 and see what you think. I personally think it covers the ground well of not having the front wheel feel too vague, thus necessitating the need for more and more aggressive (read: heavier and heavier) front tires because the new geo has put us so far behind the front wheel, with shorter and shorter stems exacerbating that issue as well.

I came off hardtails with head angles too steep to ride what I was riding for years (yet I was still riding what I was riding just fine, I just never got the memo that what was fine before was now sacrilege) and was running a 100mm stem and 740 bars. My new 120 dualie has a 67 HA and I'm running an 80 with a 780 bar and Ikons and it feels pretty solid. I still have to weight the front if I really want to aggressively flick the front wheel over in certain turns but I will not put super chunky tires on 'downcountry' bike. Seems purpose defeating to me. To each their own though.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Proper stem length is a matter of bike fit.
We don’t ‘choose‘ stem length — we get whichever stem length puts us in the correct riding position.
=sParty


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Jayem said:


> WTH is a "downcountry stem"?


Pretty sure it's those ones that have length issues, but at least they got the girth.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Sparticus said:


> Proper stem length is a matter of bike fit.
> We don't 'choose' stem length - we get whichever stem length puts us in the correct riding position.


This^.

Usually, there is 20mm difference in reach between each frame size. Which typically means a person should only need to change +/- 10mm of stem from stock to dial in the fit. If you need more than 10mm of stem change to dial in the fit, then you probably should be on a different size frame.... but some people have their own preferences about upsizing/downsizing, or their body proportions are way off of typical.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

stem length bar width.. the comfortable fit requires a certain distance from shoulders to hands.

Wide bars, short stem is same fit as narrow bars, long stem. Pick bar width you like, then stem length follows.

wide bars short stem you’ve got more steering leverage. Turning is more stable.
Narrow bars long stem the front wheel turns faster, bike is twitchier.

I’m 6’1” and my shoulders like 780mm bars, I run a 50mm stem, it’s good for me on my bike.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Sparticus said:


> Proper stem length is a matter of bike fit.
> We don't 'choose' stem length - we get whichever stem length puts us in the correct riding position.
> =sParty


I disagree. 
If you are having to put a 90mm stem on your DC bike to fit well, you simply bought too small of a bike and trying to make up for it with an extra long stem is a fools game. Sell the frame and start over.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> I disagree.
> If you are having to put a 90mm stem on your DC bike to fit well, you simply bought too small of a bike and trying to make up for it with an extra long stem is a fools game. Sell the frame and start over.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


If I size up, stack goes up, too.

Literally no one makes a bike with stack low enough with an ideal reach. Thus, ~445mm reach and 70-80mm stem.

For reference, I'm 5'5", 31.5" inseam.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> Proper stem length is a matter of bike fit.
> We don't 'choose' stem length - we get whichever stem length puts us in the correct riding position.
> =sParty


Except, the correct riding position is different for different purposes.

If I am attacking steep trails I want those bars higher and further back, but that same position will make it harder to find front end bite on lower grade trails. And that same position that allows me to attack steep trails is not comfortable for big rides. Mountain biking is all about compromise, DH performance, climbing performance, and comfort are often in conflict. Stem length and rise is one of the easiest ways we have to tweak any of these.

Personally I have 3 three stems and two bars that I will swap out. My default is a 0 degree rise 60mm stem on a flat 720mm bar, I will swap in a -17 stem for big pedalling days. For more aggressive riding I have a 50mm stem on a small rise 740mm width bar. These swaps change the feel of the bike dramatically and even require a bit of suspension tuning to rebalance the bike.

For the OP, generally on a short travel trail bike stems are 40-70mm. If you are finding a 70mm is too short you are probably on a bike that is a bit small for you.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> If I size up, stack goes up, too.
> 
> Literally no one makes a bike with stack low enough with an ideal reach. Thus, ~445mm reach and 70-80mm stem.
> 
> ...


165mm cranks are amazing for those of us with short legs. All of sudden we almost fit 29ers.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Because you have to put the seat higher?


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> I disagree.
> If you are having to put a 90mm stem on your DC bike to fit well, you simply bought too small of a bike and trying to make up for it with an extra long stem is a fools game. Sell the frame and start over.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Uh no, incorrect. He isnt talking about putting a 90mm stem on his 'downcountry' bike, he was saying that his old xc bike had a 90 (which is completely normal), and whether or not he's ok to run a 60 to 70 vs a 40 to 50 etc on his new short travel. Which yes, yes he is. Some of us have been riding for many years and don't need to subscribe to the 'shorter is better and if it isn't you just don't fit in' mantra.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Could also get longer reach by reducing the number of spacers under the stem. Easy, cheap to try first.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

d365 said:


> Could also get longer reach by reducing the number of spacers under the stem. Easy, cheap to try first.


Yup, and can also use bar with more rise to keep height close if the drop isn't wanted or tolerated.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

LMN said:


> 165mm cranks are amazing for those of us with short legs. All of sudden we almost fit 29ers.


According to the internet, I have long legs for my height. 2" longer than the average person my height, in fact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

I have a ‘21 Epic Evo with a 60mm stem and 780 bars. The frame is a medium with a 436mm reach in the low setting (as it is now). The bike came with 750 bars and when I changed to the 780 bars I though about going to a 50mm stem. I tried the 60mm it came with and it felt good so I stayed with that, no weird arc from the longer stem. The 60mm stem does help keep my weight over the middle, I don’t need to move forward in a turn to get weight on the front, plus the HTA is 66.5 so the front isn’t way out there like a chopper. On steep down hills it can just start to feel a little forward but I’ve never had a scare of going over.


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

jochribs said:


> Uh no, incorrect. He isnt talking about putting a 90mm stem on his 'downcountry' bike, he was saying that his old xc bike had a 90 (which is completely normal), and whether or not he's ok to run a 60 to 70 vs a 40 to 50 etc on his new short travel. Which yes, yes he is. Some of us have been riding for many years and don't need to subscribe to the 'shorter is better and if it isn't you just don't fit in' mantra.


This is exactly right. Racing and training for years on a bike with a 80-90mm stem and then jumping on the same size frame with a 40mm stem seems strange.

Ill buy some chap online stems and have a practice. I recon the 60mm mark should suffice hopefully... time will tell.

Thanks for everyone input... I know its a personal fit/preference but sometime sits nice to just get people reassurance so I can sleep at night haha


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LockyA said:


> This is exactly right. Racing and training for years on a bike with a 80-90mm stem and then jumping on the same size frame with a 40mm stem seems strange.
> 
> Ill buy some chap online stems and have a practice. I recon the 60mm mark should suffice hopefully... time will tell.
> 
> Thanks for everyone input... I know its a personal fit/preference but sometime sits nice to just get people reassurance so I can sleep at night haha


Out of curiosity, what is your new bike? And what were you riding before?


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

LMN said:


> Out of curiosity, what is your new bike? And what were you riding before?


I have a 2021 Scalpel Highmod and recently got a 2021 Revel Ranger. Reach and fit etc is pretty similar, which makes being used to a 90mm stem hard to go back to a 40mm stem.

Im 172cm high and ride medium framed mtb and a 51cm road bike.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

If you have gotten a new bike that is the proper size, generally, I'd stay with the stem length it came with for a while to see if you end up liking it. Older XC bikes were spec'd with longer stems because that geometry was the basis of their design.
That has changed. They now are designed such that a long stem - if the bike fits you - is not required or desirable.
If you need to change the stem length to get the right fit, +/- 10mm is certainly fine, but going back to a long stem, such as you're used to suggests to me that the bike doesn't fit properly.

Having said that, 60-70 isn't crazy, but I think you should try to ride it with a short stem for a while, unless it's obvious that won't work. You may get used to it pretty quickly.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

LockyA said:


> I have a 2021 Scalpel Highmod and recently got a 2021 Revel Ranger. Reach and fit etc is pretty similar, which makes being used to a 90mm stem hard to go back to a 40mm stem.
> 
> Im 172cm high and ride medium framed mtb and a 51cm road bike.


If reach and fit with the 40mm is similar to reach and fit with a 90 on your other bike, it seems to me you're done!
Why would you want 50mm more reach than you're used to? Or even 10 to 20 more with a 50-60mm stem.
Do you just think it looks funny?


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

MSU Alum said:


> If reach and fit with the 40mm is similar to reach and fit with a 90 on your other bike, it seems to me you're done!
> Why would you want 50mm more reach than you're used to? Or even 10 to 20 more with a 50-60mm stem.
> Do you just think it looks funny?


Reach of the frame is the same.... this is why the stem length is throwing me out because the DC is 50mm shorter to the centre of the handle bars!


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

LockyA said:


> Reach of the frame is the same.... this is why the stem length is throwing me out because the DC is 50mm shorter to the centre of the handle bars!


Oh, okay, and you have your seat set at a comfortable position, or did you mimic the seat position on your previous bike?
I'm kind of curious.
When I got my Giant, I went from a 40 to a 50 and it's fine. Then I went from 6 degree sweep to 12 degree and it's still fine!
Anyway, good luck. Do what you think is best for you, but like I said, I'd give it a few rides anyway.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> If I size up, stack goes up, too.
> 
> Literally no one makes a bike with stack low enough with an ideal reach. Thus, ~445mm reach and 70-80mm stem.
> 
> ...


1) You shouldn't need to 'size up' on a modern bike, that's a hold over from 2012 when bikes of the same size were 50-80mm too short. 
2) bar height up and down is easily adjustable with reversible stems and fifteenth rise/ drop bars.
3) if you in particular have some sort of very weird fit you should specify that before you give that recommendation to someone asking a general fit question.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> 1) You shouldn't need to 'size up' on a modern bike, that's a hold over from 2012 when bikes of the same size were 50-80mm too short.
> 2) bar height up and down is easily adjustable with reversible stems and fifteenth rise/ drop bars.
> 3) if you in particular have some sort of very weird fit you should specify that before you give that recommendation to someone asking a general fit question.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk





Suns_PSD said:


> 1) You shouldn't need to 'size up' on a modern bike, that's a hold over from 2012 when bikes of the same size were 50-80mm too short.
> 2) bar height up and down is easily adjustable with reversible stems and fifteenth rise/ drop bars.
> 3) if you in particular have some sort of very weird fit you should specify that before you give that recommendation to someone asking a general fit question.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


1) I'm on a medium frame. It fits me quite well.

2) already on a Syntace FlatForce stem, no spacers under it.

3) My bike doesn't look particularly strange to most people.

Here's a comparison of similar bikes. The Spur would basically be unrideable for me. It looks like a great bike, but the bars would be way too high for me, and I'd only go from a 77mm FlatForce to a 66mm.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

LockyA said:


> What's everyone's thoughts on a good sized stem length for a downcountry/trail bike??
> 
> I know it's personal preference I respect to geo and bike fit bit what's everyone's thoughts on an ideal length?
> 
> ...


What matters is the horizontal distance of the handlebars from the BB and saddle. So you really need to focus on (stem + reach) number if you want to have similar fit between your bikes. This is a good approximation. Stem length or terms like down country don't mean much in terms of fit.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> 1) I'm on a medium frame. It fits me quite well.
> 
> 2) already on a Syntace FlatForce stem, no spacers under it.
> 
> ...


The higher Stack of the Spur is interesting to me (I have one) in that the stack feels darn low and with a 35mm rider bar, my bar is still just below my seat. Not sure what I'd do if the Spur lost another 25mm of stack height? Run 60mm rise bars?


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I've swapped stems 20mm one way or the other and not noticed enough of a difference to dislike it. I'm squarely in the middle of medium and large for basically every brand, so every time I get a new frame I have to experiment with stem and seat position. 

I'm on a 120mm Japhy right now running a 40mm stem with 780mm bars. I have a Ti frame coming in with almost identical geo and there's a 60mm stem sitting on my workbench that I'll be swapping. 40mm rides great on sub 20 mile rides, but long days in the saddle bikepacking or training I start to feel being that compact in the cockpit. 20mm doesn't seem like a lot, but definitely helps in long distance comfort.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> 1) You shouldn't need to 'size up' on a modern bike, that's a hold over from 2012 when bikes of the same size were 50-80mm too short.
> 2) bar height up and down is easily adjustable with reversible stems and fifteenth rise/ drop bars.
> 3) if you in particular have some sort of very weird fit you should specify that before you give that recommendation to someone asking a general fit question.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Sun's, I think you started riding, what, 7 years ago?? I think you need to find a use for the left over wine corks, and be more quiet. You are not in any position to be reprimanding anyone, anywhere about bikes and fit. Seriously. Remember, you're only a big shot on MTBR. And that really isn't anything great.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Find your ideal length and stick with it 

I run 50mm stems on all my rigs.

Short travel 29er, AM HT 29er, 29er plus bike and 650b Enduro rig...

...all have 50mm stems and 780 to 800 mil bars.

650b bars have higher rise as I like a fairly tall stack.

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

CrozCountry said:


> What matters is the horizontal distance of the handlebars from the BB and saddle. So you really need to focus on (stem + reach) number if you want to have similar fit between your bikes. This is a good approximation. Stem length or terms like down country don't mean much in terms of fit.


This is pretty spot on. I actually did a little different and rather than just measuring the reach plus the stem, I measured the seatpost clamp to the bar clamp. All angles considered, my reach to the bars with a much longer bike and an 80mm stem is still shorter than it was on my previous hardtail. I'm at 5'10 and I'm on a M/L frame. No way in the world I'd go to a Large. Just way too long. And the extra stability and all that coin-phrase nonsense is just not needed. This bike felt like a dang truck for quite a while. The wheelbase is almost 4 inches longer than my last and that's all out front. Seatstays are same length.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I run shorter stems on my hardtail often (right now, 35mm vs 50) as I prefer a shorter (effective) reach on them. So there's nothing wrong with having a different length stem on different bikes. Sometimes it's just a reach issue for that particular frame. Saddle to grip.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

has the OP set the saddle further back on the rails to simulate his original bike position
the new bikes have steeper seat angles
otherwise, no wonder the reach feels cramped


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> Because you have to put the seat higher?


maybe because with the seatpost in the lowest possible position (when the dropper is fully extended) they can finally reach the pedals?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

ccm said:


> maybe because with the seatpost in the lowest possible position (when the dropper is fully extended) they can finally reach the pedals?


Then the bike's waaaaay too big. But, this is why I'm curious. Then again, I hedge on L or XL frames, so totally different issues. I know once you're outside the "mean" things get weird.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> The higher Stack of the Spur is interesting to me (I have one) in that the stack feels darn low and with a 35mm rider bar, my bar is still just below my seat. Not sure what I'd do if the Spur lost another 25mm of stack height? Run 60mm rise bars?


The Spur is a Transition, obviously. It's designed to appeal to a different crowd than the Mondraker, Intense, SC and Specialized offerings in the same theoretical niche. While it may have similar geometry and travel to the other models in the same genre, it's really not designed with the same intent.

It's an "enduro" guy's short travel bike. Not particularly spritely uphill and based on the builds I see in the Transition forum, it's never going to be the best option for covering ground quickly. Fun bike? Absolutely. Durable? Very likely. And that's why people by them.

So, the high stack isn't that perplexing. It's not made for XC or endurance racing, going particularly fast up hill. It's made for covering ground a bit more efficiently than a full blown sled.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LockyA said:


> I have a 2021 Scalpel Highmod and recently got a 2021 Revel Ranger. Reach and fit etc is pretty similar, which makes being used to a 90mm stem hard to go back to a 40mm stem.
> 
> Im 172cm high and ride medium framed mtb and a 51cm road bike.


I'm a bit shorter at 165cm.

My XC bike is an Orbea Oiz, reach 435 in a medium, and my trail bike is an Orbea Occam reach 450. On my XC bike I run a 70mm stem.

On my Occam I have tried a lot of different stem lengths. I initially started with a 35mm, this was way too short. The bike wasn't particularly comfortable to pedal and just didn't feel right on the descents. I switched to a 50mm stem and it really improved the descending, but on long days I still felt cramped and struggled with back pain. This spring I put a 60mm stem on it and gave a really nice compromise, I am comfortable for big pedal days and can still toss the bike around. I did a 70mm stem, and although it gave a nice pedalling position I found the position to long to toss the bike around like I wanted to.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

ccm said:


> has the OP set the saddle further back on the rails to simulate his original bike position
> the new bikes have steeper seat angles
> otherwise, no wonder the reach feels cramped


True, but along with the steeper seat angles, the 'reach' has been pushed forward by the seat tube. Think about it. If a TT stays the same length, but the seat angle gets steeper, the reach (and wheelbase) will have grown. Reach only equates to that. It isnt that the fit got longer necessarily. Its that the handlbar's (head tube, specifically) got pushed further in front of the BB.

So if the bike the OP got is the same length, or even a smidge longer in the TT, and also has a steeper SA, the whole bike got substantially longer while the shorter stem brings things back in the OPPOSITE direction. For riders like myself and what I gather to be the same for the OP, this causes a small paradox where we don't want our older xc stems, but we also don't want these (in our opinion... well mine...I can't speak for the OP's sentiment) ridiculously stubby stems that are specced/expected to be on these bikes.

Factor in that the relaxed head angles have also taken no small part in getting that front wheel out in front even further and what you have is a front wheel that is vague at times because it's got less weight on it. This has been 'corrected' (if you can call it that with a straight face) by people continually going further and further down the road of heavier and chunkier tires in order to combat the fronts proclivity to wash in certain situations. ("But it's stable!!" They'll say, and say it from the roof tops. I honestly don't remember any bike of mine ever feeling unstable, but I digress. )

The irony of all of that is people have been squawking non stop about older geo and it's inherent danger and going over the bars and it's being twitchy and yadayadayadayada...when folks like myself had been riding this sort of geo from 'hell' for way longer than the squawkers have even ridden a bike in most cases...and on terrain the squawkers would pull out the Karen phone in about .2 seconds to have sanitized into predictable pitches, manmade tech and just the right sprinkling of grade reversals and don't forget a pinch of paprika while you're at it.

But, it's progress. Dont get me wrong, I'm being quite the smart ass here...but I do like my new bike...however, it isn't the end-all, be-all of riding and there are certainly things lost with modern geo that I guess if a person were too much of a weeny to appreciate in the first place, they wouldn't understand anyway. But hell, that sure doesn't stop them from spouting how much they 'know'.

( This is NOT directed at you, by the way CCM. I started responding about reach etc and got on a tear ?)


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

dysfunction said:


> Because you have to put the seat higher?


If you are short the stack height of a modern 29er means that the bars quite high. This isn't really an issue descending but having your bars above your seat isn't the best position for hard pedalling. So, yes a shorter crank means your seat sits about 5mm taller. Not a lot, but we seem to be super sensitive to these small changes on bikes.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jochribs said:


> True, but along with the steeper seat angles, the 'reach' has been pushed forward by the seat tube. Think about it. If a TT stays the same length, but the seat angle gets steeper, the reach (and wheelbase) will have grown. Reach only equates to that. It isnt that the fit got longer necessarily. Its that the handlbar's (head tube, specifically) got pushed further in front of the BB.
> 
> So if the bike the OP got is the same length, or even a smidge longer in the TT, and also has a steeper SA, the whole bike got substantially longer while the shorter stem brings things back in the OPPOSITE direction. For riders like myself and what I gather to be the same for the OP, this causes a small paradox where we don't want our older xc stems, but we also don't want these (in our opinion... well mine...I can't speak for the OP's sentiment) ridiculously stubby stems that are specced/expected to be on these bikes.
> 
> ...


WELL SAID.

I don't do full caps very often!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

LMN said:


> WELL SAID.
> 
> I don't do full caps very often!


Thank you LMN, coming from you that means a lot! Really regard your commentary on this site.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jochribs said:


> True, but along with the steeper seat angles, the 'reach' has been pushed forward by the seat tube. Think about it. If a TT stays the same length, but the seat angle gets steeper, the reach (and wheelbase) will have grown. Reach only equates to that. It isnt that the fit got longer necessarily. Its that the handlbar's (head tube, specifically) got pushed further in front of the BB.
> 
> So if the bike the OP got is the same length, or even a smidge longer in the TT, and also has a steeper SA, the whole bike got substantially longer while the shorter stem brings things back in the OPPOSITE direction. For riders like myself and what I gather to be the same for the OP, this causes a small paradox where we don't want our older xc stems, but we also don't want these (in our opinion... well mine...I can't speak for the OP's sentiment) ridiculously stubby stems that are specced/expected to be on these bikes.
> 
> ...


This is one of the best posts I've read on MTBR.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> This is one of the best posts I've read on MTBR.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you Le Duke! You're another person I highly admire and regard here.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

Le Duke said:


> According to the internet, I have long legs for my height. 2" longer than the average person my height, in fact.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are 5 foot 5 with 31.5 inseam. I am 5 foot 11 with 32 inseam. My legs are definitely short for my height.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

MSU Alum said:


> Oh, okay, and you have your seat set at a comfortable position, or did you mimic the seat position on your previous bike?
> I'm kind of curious.
> When I got my Giant, I went from a 40 to a 50 and it's fine. Then I went from 6 degree sweep to 12 degree and it's still fine!
> Anyway, good luck. Do what you think is best for you, but like I said, I'd give it a few rides anyway.


Ive set the saddle back as far as I can which mimics the saddle to BB measurement of -40mm which is the same on my other bikes. With the 40mm stem this leaves me approx 40mm short compared to my XC.

Drop is 20mm higher than the XC. Ill try a 60mm stem to get the reach 20mm short and hopefully be able to get used to the 20mm gap in comparison to the current 40mm.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

LockyA said:


> Ive set the saddle back as far as I can which mimics the saddle to BB measurement of -40mm which is the same on my other bikes. With the 40mm stem this leaves me approx 40mm short compared to my XC.
> 
> Drop is 20mm higher than the XC. Ill try a 60mm stem to get the reach 20mm short and hopefully be able to get used to the 20mm gap in comparison to the current 40mm.


I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I seem to remember being more laid out in reach on older bikes with long stems. I'm way more upright now, and in fact my handlebars are a couple of inches higher than my seat, and have been on my last 3 bikes. I'm about 5'9" tall, 30" inseam and don't feel like I need to shift forward as much on this newer geometry for super steep climbing as I used to. I think there was another thread about guys wanting set back seat posts on the newer geometry. My seat is about in the middle. Of course, that doesn't really help you!


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

So I've put a 50mm stem on it and dropped another spacer from the headset. I now have it within 15mm of reach to where my XC is at.
It's 15mm shorter in reach to where I grip the bike and the bars sit 20mm higher in drop.
Will give it a go and see how it rides.

Cheers for all the discussion!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

LockyA said:


> So I've put a 50mm stem on it and dropped another spacer from the headset. I now have it within 15mm of reach to where my XC is at.
> It's 15mm shorter in reach to where I grip the bike and the bars sit 20mm higher in drop.
> Will give it a go and see how it rides.
> 
> ...


That thing is f***ing sharp! Kinda reminds me of something


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Bike looks better with black side wall tires 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> The Spur is a Transition, obviously. It's designed to appeal to a different crowd than the Mondraker, Intense, SC and Specialized offerings in the same theoretical niche. While it may have similar geometry and travel to the other models in the same genre, it's really not designed with the same intent.
> 
> It's an "enduro" guy's short travel bike. Not particularly spritely uphill and based on the builds I see in the Transition forum, it's never going to be the best option for covering ground quickly. Fun bike? Absolutely. Durable? Very likely. And that's why people by them.
> 
> ...





https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-cross-country-efficiency-test-video-2020.html



Not that it's the end all be all, however in the PB efficiency test, the Spur beat the standard Scapel, tied the Supercaliper & the Epic Evo, and was only beat by 3% by the standard Epic (the Lux killed them all but basically rides like a HT). Usually I'd consider the 3% pretty significant except the Spur weighed 3.54#s more (17% more weight!) and 2.5#s of that weight was in the rotating components and only 1# in the frame. It's debatable if the Epic would have beat the Spur at all if they shared the same drivetrain. It certainly wouldn't on a more aggressive bumpy ascent/ descent. The Epic also had the advantage of the 'Brain' whereas the Spur was left wide open.

I don't have any experience on true XC race bikes, but what lead me down the DC path was I rode a buddy's Mach 4 SL on Live Valve and it was crazy how easily it pedaled, and then he proceeded to ride the exact same rough trail I did (he admitted it wasn't so much fun on that bike and he wished he had his AM bike).

My Spur doesn't yet have some of the key components it'll be getting, primarily the sub 1200 gram wheels. However compared to my SJ Evo the Spur is SO MUCH faster on 85% of the trail. It is not a small difference.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

LockyA said:


> I have a 2021 Scalpel Highmod and recently got a 2021 Revel Ranger. Reach and fit etc is pretty similar, which makes being used to a 90mm stem hard to go back to a 40mm stem.
> 
> Im 172cm high and ride medium framed mtb and a 51cm road bike.


What size bars are on your 90mm stem bike vs the 40mm?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-cross-country-efficiency-test-video-2020.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even a slight puff of wind, from different directions, during that test would skew the results dramatically. Your "slow" bikes could become "fast", and vice versa.

Not saying that was necessarily the case, but I don't put too much stock in that field test. It's just not particularly, uh, scientific.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

jochribs said:


> ( This is NOT directed at you, by the way CCM. I started responding about reach etc and got on a tear 😂)


No problem
I enjoyed your rant too


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LockyA said:


> So I've put a 50mm stem on it and dropped another spacer from the headset. I now have it within 15mm of reach to where my XC is at.
> It's 15mm shorter in reach to where I grip the bike and the bars sit 20mm higher in drop.
> Will give it a go and see how it rides.
> 
> ...


The new bike looks great!

I would try slowly creaping the saddle forward a bit. That bike is designed to be ridden/pedalled with your centre of mass further forward. The pedalling position will be different than your XC bike so be careful, some people can handle a change in position with no problems, others get injured.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

...


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I keep having comments that I don't post still be there when I go to post something else later!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

stripes said:


> What size bars are on your 90mm stem bike vs the 40mm?


I was wondering this too


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

stripes said:


> What size bars are on your 90mm stem bike vs the 40mm?


760mm on both. Flatbar on XC and 10mm riser on trail.


----------



## LockyA (Apr 9, 2019)

LMN said:


> The new bike looks great!
> 
> I would try slowly creaping the saddle forward a bit. That bike is designed to be ridden/pedalled with your centre of mass further forward. The pedalling position will be different than your XC bike so be careful, some people can handle a change in position with no problems, others get injured.


I have planed on doing this. Just the change from 170mm to 175mm cranks seems to be getting me in the legs abit!

On another note.. does anyone have a -6 agree 60mm stem.... if so how much drop does the stem produce?

Cheers


----------



## Boner Champ (Mar 31, 2015)

LockyA said:


> I have planed on doing this. Just the change from 170mm to 175mm cranks seems to be getting me in the legs abit!
> 
> On another note.. does anyone have a -6 agree 60mm stem.... if so how much drop does the stem produce?
> 
> Cheers


60mm*tan(6deg) = 6.3mm


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

jochribs said:


> True, but along with the steeper seat angles, the 'reach' has been pushed forward by the seat tube. Think about it. If a TT stays the same length, but the seat angle gets steeper, the reach (and wheelbase) will have grown. Reach only equates to that. It isnt that the fit got longer necessarily. Its that the handlbar's (head tube, specifically) got pushed further in front of the BB.
> 
> So if the bike the OP got is the same length, or even a smidge longer in the TT, and also has a steeper SA, the whole bike got substantially longer while the shorter stem brings things back in the OPPOSITE direction. For riders like myself and what I gather to be the same for the OP, this causes a small paradox where we don't want our older xc stems, but we also don't want these (in our opinion... well mine...I can't speak for the OP's sentiment) ridiculously stubby stems that are specced/expected to be on these bikes.
> 
> ...


Sorry to resurrect this thread, but you have perfectly described my experience/issue with newer bikes.

Don't get me wrong, I love my '18 Top Fuel and '21 Epic Evo.
They are amazing at really high speeds on more open trails, and they blast over the rough stuff nicely. But they require a lot of body English to wrestle them through the turns. 
Many of our trails are pretty twisty.

And, I have a lot more hand and arm soreness on these new bikes due to aggressive weighting.
"Heavy feet, light hands" = tire wash and crash...unless I run an aggressive, heavy tire.

But I'm always stunned when I ride my '01 I-drive Team, and the front end just sticks everywhere (skinny Fast Trak 26x2.2 S-works on Mavic 217 rims).
The bike doesn't really need aggressive tires.
Merely sitting on the bike places more weight on the front (shorter front-center), and the longer stem increases down force even more due to the added leverage.

I don't have to think about weighting the front tire, and snapping it through the twisties is a telepathic experience. The bike turns fast, requiring more attention, but it isn't twitchy.
The GT generated PRs on 7 segments that are so fast that I don't think I'll be able to top them with the 29ers.

The GT is only about a pound lighter than my 29ers, but it feels much lighter.
I wish I had a 100-120mm travel bike that fit and handled just like the GT.
I'm getting older, so the 80mm is a bit rough on my body.
I've considered a full custom built full suspension frame...

Take care,
Bob


----------

