# Stem height....why so high?



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Maybe it is because I came from riding road bikes for so long, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the bikes I see out on the trails and many on here seem to have the stem set up pretty high. Why?

I understand if you have back issues or whatever where bending over would be painful. But for me, they just seem to look like the hibrid bikes of old. Back when I worked in a shop and the first hibrid bikes started hitting the sales floor we are all laughing. It felt like you were riding a stationary bike in the gym or something. We understood that the initial idea was for the folks tooling around the neighborhood with their kids or for the older folks out there. Now, I am seeing uber high end bikes w/ bars almost 2-3" higher than the seat. Just seems odd to me.

Sorry, just had to vent after seeing a recently posted bike in one of the threads here. Don't get me wrong, not saying you have to have your seat shoved up your @$$ (2-3" higher than your bars). I guess whatever works for you and to each his/her own.


----------



## JasonByers (Nov 13, 2010)

I have long legs short torso. Higher stem is more comfortable for me. I have a 1" spacer with a 90mm 0 degree stem.


----------



## TruTone (Jun 30, 2011)

Sometimes you get better control with a high stem, but I feel like it's more important to keep the center of gravity low, plus the racer in me wants to get as aero as possible.  I keep my bars below my saddle.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

I just feel like I am riding some sort of chopper or something when the bars are higher. I mean, it just feels awkward as all get out when trying to stand up and pedal. Technically, my seat is higher than my bars (and they have a 1/4" rise) but my bar ends make them look even. I guess I just think it looks funny. Especially when I see guys riding them. 

I mean, in sports like soccer, football, tennis, golf, there is always a sports stance. You know, knees slightly bent, feet about shoulders width apart, hands up...you know, ready to go any direction. But the guys I see riding these bikes with high bars/stems just look like they are on some sort of comfort bike or something.


----------



## noosa2 (May 20, 2004)

I bet your road bike background combined with the types of trails you ride has a lot to do with your preferences. I spent years riding BMX bikes and the trails I ride my SS 29er on have lots of drops, technical climbs and the occasional jump and I'm often wondering how some guys can run their bars so low. Having said that my bars are about level with my seat on my Jabberwocky and about 1/4" higher than the seat on my geared bike.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

To each his own.

--sParty


----------



## vaultbrad (Oct 17, 2007)

I have a hard time hopping the bikes with bars too low. I like hopping my bikes.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

I like to hop as well but honestly, the trails I ride really don't have much of anything to hop short of a 10" log here and there. If the logs are more than that, I will either go one wheel at a time or go around it. Not that I can't go over the larger stuff but normally I just find it easier to hold my speed and go around it. For me, it is the seat height that is the limiting factor with how hi I can hop the bike. With the seat where it is pictured above, I really can't hop anywhere near as high as I could if it wasn't there at all! But I enjoy sitting and pedaling whenever possible so the seat stays and I just go around crap.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

1SPD said:


> Maybe it is because I came from riding road bikes for so long, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the bikes I see out on the trails and many on here seem to have the stem set up pretty high. Why?


It's the result of a trend in mtn biking over the past 10 years moving more towards gravity stuff. The 90s was all about XC racing geometry and light weight, and you had a far more stretched out, low in the front, narrow bars riding position. As people started wanting to do crazier and crazier stuff on their bikes, we started seeing seeing heavier bikes with longer travel, slacker angles, short stems, wide riser bars, and slammed seats. Since these setups that worked for the hardcore gravity crowd also coincidentally felt more comfy to newbs and the bike path crowd, it just spread into everything.

I started riding in the 90s with the more xc race geometry, so I lagged a bit behind the trend. But eventually I started experimenting with these newfangled setups those crazy kids were riding, and liked some of it. Gradually my stems got a little shorter, my bars a little wider, my seat a little lower, and my travel a lot longer. But I've kind of found my sweet spot somewhere between those 90s setups and the modern setups (my bars are still narrower and my stems longer than the typical new bike setup). I appreciate the greater control I get from these modern influences, but I also still appreciate the lower more stretched out XC race influences.

I think the modern stuff is under-appreciated by the old-school curmudgeons, but I also think new riders don't appreciate the benefits of that classic 90s XC race geo.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Well damn, now I'm cosidered old and out of touch with the new wave of things. This thread is going down hill quick! (no pun intended).

I can see exactly where you are coming from. I would say that I was riding trails back then (early 90's) which would explain my fascination with uber light, carbon, and annodized parts as well. Never really got over that actually.

I can see how it spread as I can say it is more comfy sitting up right but I just feel like I am lacking control. As for the seat height, I won't compermise on my one and only bike. My legs have to their space and since I typically do XC riding it just makes sense.

What I need (as stated in the jealousy thread) is a separate bike for all applications


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

1SPD said:


> Well damn, now I'm cosidered old and out of touch with the new wave of things.


Exactly.

As to the seat height comment, I went almost 15 years with my seat at what I thought was the "correct" seat position based on the bike setup guides from back in the early to mid 90s. It's essentially the same way you would set up a road bike.
About 5 years ago I picked up a gravity dropper seatpost to play with (part of my experimenting with that newfangled stuff). It was set up with a 1" and a 3" drop. I would drop it into the 1" drop for some techy sections and rarely the 3" drop for super steep stuff. I eventually just started leaving it in the 1" drop for the entire ride, and while it felt slightly less efficient pedalling, it gave me a lot more control and confidence, and just plain made the ride more fun. I then dropped the seats on my other bikes somewhere between a half inch and an inch below where I had been running them, and never went back.


----------



## greasemonkeee (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm just wondering if you started this thread as an excuse to let the rest of us covet your ride.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

Your stem height is likely why you suck at riding.

And everyone knows, it is the length, not the height, that really matters.


----------



## p nut (Apr 19, 2007)

I think all y'all are overthinking this. If you like your current set up, ride it. If not, change it up until you find something you like.

FWIW, my saddle to bar drop is a couple inches (like 1SPD's set up). Last week's ride, I had it lowered about an inch and it drove me nuts the entire ride. It's back up to the original height and all's well.


----------



## hihache (Aug 17, 2006)

The stems on my bikes have never been particularly high, but I can think of a few good reasons to have it a bit higher.

Having the bars a bit higher means that when you're standing up on a steep climb you can arch your back to make it more upright and get a lot of leverage at a super low cadence. I can't do this on small framed bikes or ones with short, low stems.

An upright riding position is more fun and comfortable going downhill. Short, low stems make me feel like I'm constantly on the verge of going over the bars on technical descents.


----------



## dubthang (Apr 2, 2009)

I don't even use a stem anymore. I just grab onto the fork legs, and hope for the best.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

http://www.velominati.com/blog/the-rules/

Read rule #45

Stem height shows how fast you are, just as wearing a helmet with no visor does (see avatar). When I see a guy with a slammed stem, I just know he's fast - like TDF fast.

Don't raise your stem unless you want to look like a weakling. Make sure all helmets are without visors. MTB'ing is all about looks and don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

If I know I'm going to be riding in an area that has mostly all-mountain riders, I make sure to wear my baggies and Fox jersey with a Camelbak. If I know the area I'm going to be riding in has mostly XC riders, I wear full lycra kits and one (1) waterbottle filled with Hammer Nutrition.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

My mountain bike's stem is slammed farther down than my road bike's stem. rft: But the mtb stem is some crazy rise, and the road stem is something like a -7 degree rise right now. But I'm one of the only XC riders in a town full of AM/DH riders, so I take full pride in the fact that my stem's slammed down, with my narrow bars and my saddle at the right height for maximum extension of the legs. Roadie set-up on an XC bike. **** yea.


----------



## azspray (Mar 24, 2010)

Its better to have the seat twice as high as the stem; that way you're always riding downhill.


----------



## vaultbrad (Oct 17, 2007)




----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Sick!

--sParty


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> Sick!
> 
> --sParty


Do you have that response saved or something?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

umarth said:


> Do you have that response saved or something?


Have you not discovered the "canned response" button yet?

Sick!

--sParty


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Sparticus said:


> Have you not discovered the "canned response" button yet?
> 
> Sick!
> 
> --sParty


No ****, sherlock. Umarth's like.... ten parsecs behind, or something.


----------



## databot (Jul 3, 2009)

hihache said:


> Having the bars a bit higher means that when you're standing up on a steep climb you can arch your back to make it more upright and get a lot of leverage at a super low cadence. I can't do this on small framed bikes or ones with short, low stems.


Wide riser bars and steeper stems also let you open out your chest more fully than if yer squeezin' it with arms gripping narrow, low bars.

When I'm climbing on my SS, I want my chest to work as fully as it can - get big full breaths to keep the red mist from descending.


----------



## arphaxhad (Apr 17, 2008)

hihache said:


> Having the bars a bit higher means that when you're standing up on a steep climb you can arch your back to make it more upright and get a lot of leverage at a super low cadence. I can't do this on small framed bikes or ones with short, low stems.
> 
> An upright riding position is more fun and comfortable going downhill. Short, low stems make me feel like I'm constantly on the verge of going over the bars on technical descents.





databot said:


> Wide riser bars and steeper stems also let you open out your chest more fully than if yer squeezin' it with arms gripping narrow, low bars.
> 
> When I'm climbing on my SS, I want my chest to work as fully as it can - get big full breaths to keep the red mist from descending.


+1 on both


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

1SPD said:


> Maybe it is because I came from riding road bikes for so long, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the bikes I see out on the trails and many on here seem to have the stem set up pretty high. Why?
> 
> I understand if you have back issues or whatever where bending over would be painful. But for me, they just seem to look like the hibrid bikes of old. Back when I worked in a shop and the first hibrid bikes started hitting the sales floor we are all laughing. It felt like you were riding a stationary bike in the gym or something. We understood that the initial idea was for the folks tooling around the neighborhood with their kids or for the older folks out there. Now, I am seeing uber high end bikes w/ bars almost 2-3" higher than the seat. Just seems odd to me.
> 
> Sorry, just had to vent after seeing a recently posted bike in one of the threads here. Don't get me wrong, not saying you have to have your seat shoved up your @$$ (2-3" higher than your bars). I guess whatever works for you and to each his/her own.


different stokes for different folks.

I tend to ride with my bars level with seat myself. I had to laugh on my first ride ever on my new bike 3 days ago some guys comment

"how do you like those stubby bars"

I look down at m 700mm bars and was like what do you mean?

"he is like I would personally run a riser bar"

I put my bike up to his and my bars are higher than his by a good bit since its a 29er and he has a 26 inch trail bike. He couldnt grasp the fact that the flat bars on my bike were quite similar in postion to his riser bars. MTBer can be so trendy sometimes, they will do things just because other people are doing them but wont be able to tell you why.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

BushwackerinPA said:


> different stokes for different folks.
> 
> I tend to ride with my bars level with seat myself. I had to laugh on my first ride ever on my new bike 3 days ago some guys comment
> 
> ...


So freakin' true. Guys come on here sometimes to ask, "What size stem do you guys run?" like it has any bearing on their own setup. Different frames... different bodies... I just move along with the understanding that them that know, know they know and them that don't know, don't know they don't know.

Time & experience seem the best teachers.

--sParty


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)




----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

BushwackerinPA said:


> MTBer can be so trendy sometimes,


Says the guy with a brand new 29er


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

trailville said:


> Says the guy with a brand new 29er


yeah point taken..... lol

with bar ends(how is that for not being trendy?). I also still ride a 26 inch XC SS from time to time because its fun. and to be honest I think I like my SS 29er better than my FS. I feel like I am working harder on the lighter FS bike.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

I had to raise my bars so I can lean back a little,( and stop bumping my beer gut with legs every pedal stroke) I have a full squish recumbent, a BikeE with ape-hangers, waiting in the wings if it comes to that.


----------



## vaultbrad (Oct 17, 2007)




----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> So freakin' true. Guys come on here sometimes to ask, "What size stem do you guys run?" like it has any bearing on their own setup. Different frames... different bodies... I just move along with the understanding that them that know, know they know and them that don't know, don't know they don't know.
> 
> Time & experience seem the best teachers.
> 
> --sParty


In their defense (for technical matters not their obsessiveness), time and experience have shown me that the "modern" type of trail bike fit does seem to allow for a wider range of stem lengths and heights that still qualify as comfortable, and because of that these riders are able, to a degree, to chose stem length and height based on performance aspects instead of just fit. I think it's because of the more upright position that puts less weight on the bars and the wider arm position with a shorter reach that puts the arms in a more adaptable position. I'm just guessing in hopes to match my crackpot theories with a little bit of experience. For me a stretched out position doesn't feel like it has that same range of flexibility when it comes to fit. You either dial it in _just right_ and it feels natural, or you're off a little bit and your hands hurt or your back feels stressed or something

Or maybe all us kids are still young and flexible edit: that's not supposed to be _quite_ as flirty as it sounds


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> So freakin' true. Guys come on here sometimes to ask, "What size stem do you guys run?" like it has any bearing on their own setup. Different frames... different bodies... I just move along with the understanding that them that know, know they know and them that don't know, don't know they don't know.
> 
> Time & experience seem the best teachers.
> 
> --sParty


Brant from Shedfire told me I would never realize the potential of my ragley mmmbop because I was running a stem 20mm longer than what he had designed as "optimal." Since I've been riding bikes longer than he's been designing them I decided to do it my way.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

It has been said, but your body proportions and the terrain you ride make the biggest difference.

The steeper you climb, the more you need precise balance so the front does not lift or the rear wheel spin on standing power climbs, and you need to really pull on the bars. If the bars are too high, you loose upper body power and lift the front; too low and you hurt your back and spin the rear tire.

Steep descending usually means you want the bars a little higher to keep from feeling you are going down face first. But it is a balance. On flatter trails with less steep or shorter climbs it is not as critical.

And body proportion. To wit, I am long legs, long arms, short torso - think orangutan without the red fur and toothy grin.  Short torso means a frame to the smaller side to get the correct ETT, and a shorter head tube, and my seat is high with a long seat post. That is ok, because my long arms still reach the bars that are often 2 - 3 inches below my saddle.









(Oh, yeah, and 29" (730) bars with Cane Creek Ergos that add about an inch a side for an awesome 790mm wing span!)

But I am still balanced on the bike to get good pull on the bars and not spin the rear tire.


----------



## zandr (Sep 21, 2008)

BushwackerinPA said:


> different stokes for different folks.
> 
> I tend to ride with my bars level with seat myself. I had to laugh on my first ride ever on my new bike 3 days ago some guys comment
> 
> ...


This kind of **** drives me bonkers. "How do you like (thing)?" just seems to be an introduction to that person telling you why (thing) is wrong. I once got, "how do you like those 29 inch wheels?" I said I loved them and I'd never switch back. That was a launching point for this dude - complete stranger mind you - to tell me that they're not efficient and Mountain Bike Action says 650b is the best wheel size and I'd be a lot faster if I rode a smaller wheel. This was from a guy who never saw me ride and had no idea how fast I was and didn't seem to notice that I was 6'3" riding a 21" frame. He just preached about how MBA says this and MBA says that.

****ing irritating.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

umarth said:


> Your stem height is likely why you suck at riding.
> 
> And everyone knows, it is the length, not the height, that really matters.


You don't have to touch the bottom as long as you can scrape the sides.

...wait, are we still talking about stems?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

zandr said:


> This kind of **** drives me bonkers. ... MBA says this and MBA says that.
> 
> ****ing irritating.


+ rep.

--sParty


----------



## slohr (May 22, 2008)

*Ride Height*

I actually started a thread in the 29er column. Mtb has become all about the single speed for me. I have made adjustments to dial-in my ride. I have the bar height and stem length set for long grunting, standing uphills that get my weight over the rear wheel and my waist bend comfortable. Plus, it's right for efficiently unweighting over logs without making a huge pull, and it is great for technical downhills to get the impact off my shoulder. The bars are about 1/2" above the saddle. Problem is now, can't ride my road bike with only a 1-1/4" drop to the bars without getting terrible neck and shoulder pain. I did raise the stem by a 5mm spacer and can use the drops more... but what a pain. Guess that's just an example of "form follows function" there and not how something is supposed to look...


----------



## Saddle Up (Jan 30, 2008)

It's important that I know, if you don't approve of my high stem










how do you feel about 50mm worth of head tube spacers?


----------



## TruTone (Jun 30, 2011)

Saddle Up said:


> It's important that I know, if you don't approve of my high stem
> 
> how do you feel about 50mm worth of head tube spacers?


Frankly I'm more appalled by the bell.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Saddle Up said:


> It's important that I know, if you don't approve of my high stem
> {pic}
> how do you feel about 50mm worth of head tube spacers?
> {pic}


+ rep for running whichever stem puts you in the ready standby position.

I also run 25 degree stems on me sleds -- & woodja believe 120mm length. I ain't no slave to fashun, babies. I goes wit whutevah fits & performs.

*That's what she said.*

--sParty


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

TruTone said:


> Frankly I'm more appalled by the bell.


I see a steel frame and brown bar tape (on properly set up dirt drops, might I add), so the retro bell is in good order.

However, if the saddle is not brown, then we have a problem.


----------



## drMP (Jun 4, 2006)

I have bikes set up in different ways- mostly just because that is how it happened- my endurance bike (29er SS) has a stem that is about level with the seat. The geometry makes it such that I can ride it for hours and hours. Very kick back, but aggressive and responsive. My cross country geared race bike has the stem/bars way below the seat height. Very aggressive and fast, but after about 5 hours it gets rough on the ole'body. BUT i did ride it to victory in this config on seveal 100 mile and 24hr races... My road bike is setup very aggressive (I race cat 2- so i take this very serious) again with the bars well below the seat.

For comfort on the enduros, the bars up a bit makes a HUGE difference.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Saddle Up said:


>


Bell is sweeeet! And doin' what ya damn well please.

+rep


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

1SPD said:


> I like to hop as well but honestly, the trails I ride really don't have much of anything to hop short of a 10" log here and there. If the logs are more than that, I will either go one wheel at a time or go around it. Not that I can't go over the larger stuff but normally I just find it easier to hold my speed and go around it.


Dude, your reasoning threatens to feed upon itself like Ouroborous!

You ask why to have the bars so high, saying your low bars are more aero and efficient. Then later you say that when you encounter technical features, you ride around them. Well, obviously if you avoid things that are not comfortable to ride with lower bars, higher bars will seem like a waste.

Imagine the circumstances were reversed and I were to post that I don't understand why peopel use low bars. Then you ask how I ride doubletrack and I explain that I avoid doubletrack like the plague because it is boring. Wouldn't you say that low bars seem like a waste to me because I selectively avoid any places where they could be a benefit?

So here is the answer: Higher bars are superior for anything requiring body english, such as hopping, hulking, negotiating roots and rock gardens, or balancing along a skinny. This is uncontroversial: If we examine DH racers, they do not have ultra-low aero positions, despite moving at very high speeds, and despite races being won or lost by fractions of a second.

If you are notinterested in that kind of riding, low bars are fine. No argument from me, it sound slike maintaining your speed is your goal, whereas if I encounter anything I can't bunny hop, I enjoy playing with it on the trail. But if you become you are interested in that kind of riding, you either adapt your bike or (finances allowing) purchase a second rig so you can have a specialized tool for each type of ride.

See also: Flat pedals, front suspension.


----------



## twindaddy (Jun 18, 2007)

slocaus said:


> Bell is sweeeet!


The only bell I ever use is this awesome one I grabbed in a box at the Montaña De Oro trail head thanks to the awesome folks maintaining those trails. I even hang it from my stem on occasion.


----------



## drMP (Jun 4, 2006)

*Bells are good to know riders are behind you!*



twindaddy said:


> The only bell I ever use is this awesome one I grabbed in a box at the Montaña De Oro trail head thanks to the awesome folks maintaining those trails. I even hang it from my stem on occasion.


I love the bell! I did a race in McCall ID a few weeks back and I always knew that Toby (my chief competitor!) was on my tail since his bell would automatically ding 

But last week in Sun Valley, there were many at the SS race with bells. So cool.

As a side note, i proposed to my wife at Montaña De Oro when we were students at CPSLO.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

twindaddy said:


> The only bell I ever use is this awesome one I grabbed in a box at the Montaña De Oro trail head thanks to the awesome folks maintaining those trails. I even hang it from my stem on occasion.


Dude, you're killing me. Check my sig. MdO is my area and I have delivered 1500 bells out there since March 2010.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Every bicycle -- but especially singlespeeds -- should be equipped with a bell. 

--sParty


----------



## zaskaranddriver (Oct 14, 2009)

Hope hubs should earn you a bell exemption.


----------



## fishcreek (Apr 10, 2007)

Saddle Up said:


> It's important that I know, if you don't approve of my high stem
> 
> 
> 
> ...


neg rep for gears..

+++++REP for being calgarian! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lord Humongous (Jan 12, 2004)

Low forward riding positions make it very hard for me to get the front end up. I have no trouble, on any bike, keeping the front end planted on climbs, but many bikes give me fits with lofting the front over obstacles. Guess which way my setup tends?


----------



## sparkie (Oct 7, 2006)

Can I get away with my "killer bee" sounding King hubs instead?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

sparkie said:


> Can I get away with my "killer bee" sounding King hubs instead?


Absolutely not. A bell is simply de rigueur.

--sParty

P.S. Don't get me wrong, a King hub is nice, too. But the bell is the dress... King hub is simply the tiara.


----------



## twindaddy (Jun 18, 2007)

slocaus said:


> Dude, you're killing me. Check my sig. MdO is my area and I have delivered 1500 bells out there since March 2010.


Where's the "no ****" smiley?  That was my subtle compliment and thanks in one. Although not a regular there (from the Bay Area), the bell has become more of a regular addition to my rides. Thanks for that AND the great work at MdO. I particularly like the tool kiosks along the trails suggesting a contribution of a few minutes of trail maintenance :thumbsup:


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Sparticus said:


> Absolutely not. A bell is simply de rigueur.
> 
> --sParty
> 
> P.S. Don't get me wrong, a King hub is nice, too. But the bell is the dress... King hub is simply the tiara.


Wouldn't no clothes be better, though?


----------



## jmpg (Sep 17, 2008)

vaultbrad said:


>


How do you play Polo on the Plum Delta?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

twindaddy said:


> Where's the "no ****" smiley?  That was my subtle compliment and thanks in one. Although not a regular there (from the Bay Area), the bell has become more of a regular addition to my rides. Thanks for that AND the great work at MdO. I particularly like the tool kiosks along the trails suggesting a contribution of a few minutes of trail maintenance :thumbsup:


That was the spirit I took your reply, as a compliment and thanks; that is why used the BAG smilie. And you are welcome, glad you enjoy it. The bell program has worked so well for us that we are in the process of getting more trails open to bikes there and in some of the new City Open Space as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

I agree w/ Sparty! To each his own. My set up works for me. Just ranting about some of the new set ups I see out there. Sorry if this ruffled some feathers.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

No, I didn't post my bike up so everyone can drool over it. Not even close! Hell, my seat post costs more than my cheap frame!


----------



## TroutBum (Feb 16, 2004)

1SPD said:


> Hell, my seat post costs more than my cheap frame!


You need to hook up with backwards Niner fork dood. I think you'd both hit it off nicely.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

1SPD said:


> I agree w/ Sparty! To each his own. My set up works for me. Just ranting about some of the new set ups I see out there. Sorry if this ruffled some feathers.


Too bad you edited the rant. I agree 1000% and think it was well stated.

+ rep


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

Well, I thought it was pretty good as well but then figured it would only magnify things. Oh well. thanks btw! I need more chicklet love!


----------



## veloreality (May 10, 2009)

I ride both.
Mostly on the same trails. Different style of riding.


----------



## Saddle Up (Jan 30, 2008)

TruTone said:


> Frankly I'm more appalled by the bell.


All of the cool kids are now using bells. My wife and I have been car free for over 10 years, any of our bikes that get used as car replacements are equipped with bells. It's a bylaw in our city, you must have a bell if you ride on the pathway system .


----------



## dubthang (Apr 2, 2009)

A bell works wonders for not only people on the trails, but for also making noise when it's hunting season. 

And... we use mine as a 'race' bell too. Pull up beside somebody, ding the bell, and it's go time.


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

The more I study the issue of stem height and length the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I started out looking for simple answers. Like your stem length should be no wider than your nipples and no more rise than the distance from the tip of your nose to the bottom of your chin. Even arm length ratio to the top tube and stem length something, anything simple and able to be calculated. I really hate to ask my LBS then I'll have to let them install the stem to make them happy. 

So far the closest I've found to a rule is you should be able to play a piano on your handlebars. I originally ordered a new handlebar and stem similar to my old but canceled my stem thinking I should see how the new handle bar rise and back sweep affects my desire for a shorter stem. I was just surprised to find 100 mm stem length on my bike. Not to mention between my hands going numb and feeling the need to take one hand off the wheel so I can straighten out my back after I ride a while. So, since so much biking lore comes from Roadies folding their skinny selves in half and now All Mountain guys pretending to ride Dirt bikes with pedals, I guess the only rule is experiment til you're most comfortable, hence the whole thing about being able to play the piano on your handlebars. Oh and try and look cool doing it. I better take that nifty removable visor off my helmet.


----------



## chukt (Oct 17, 2009)

*Bears*



TruTone said:


> Frankly I'm more appalled by the bell.


You might be wishing for a bell if you had an angry Grizzly Bear running you down.


----------



## Mr.Bee (Aug 22, 2010)

A bell?
I'm getting a amp and some 15" speakers on a
BOB trailer so people hear bump'n when I roll:band:

As for bars/stem height I feel you get more pop,power 
with higher rise but I like to jump a lot.


----------

