# Why Have Stems Been Too Damn Long?



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

After 28 years mountain biking and having stems from 135mm to my current 35mm I'm wondering why stems were so stupid when I was a newb? Could have saved a lot of skin back then. Every time I have gone shorter it has been a noticeable improvement with no drawbacks, including climbiness. Why too long for so long?

If you're wondering why I post this stuff, it's because I'm retired and have more spare time to ponder. That and I'm putting off garage clean up.


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

cool story bro


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis now that I've got your attention, could you answer a question that I've been pondering for some time now? 

Is that you in your avatar?

Stems? we don't need no stinking stems"


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

DJ, have you ever seen "Taxi Driver"?


----------



## kyle242gt (Nov 12, 2012)

I think it's mtb's imperfect evolution from roadbiking.

Only in the last few years have things really diverged.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

I think most of us, not being racers, are afraid to admit that we like a more upright, relaxed riding posture. I have heard and read a lot of mountain biking advice about the "attack position" and getting low but this is generally uncomfortable for long rides and I prefer comfort over small increases in speed and efficiency.

I even have a short stem on my road bike.

Things like short stems, wide handlebars, 1 x 11 gearing, and yes, even 29-inch wheels have really improved the comfort and enjoyment of riding,


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

my theory is that it's evolved along with the slacker HA. I don't know what a 70º HA, and 40mm stem would steer like, even with the proper TT length, but I envision.... pretty twitchy.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

IMO, the stem can only get so short before you start to get scrunched. If you do any kind of climbing...you're going to need to stretch out your back. If your stem is too short you can't do that. I've seen guys with stems so short and a bar so wide half their body is over the bar when they are down low trying to get up a climb. Nowadays the frames are designed around short stem. BMC's come stock with real short stems.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Same reason wheels have been too small


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Stems haven't been too long, top tubes/reach have been too short.


----------



## jstonebarger (Nov 6, 2014)

Um... My used Anthem came with a 35mm stem. It wears a 100mm stem now..


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

I am not so sure that short stems will prevail over the long run. Some people will love them and others will keep using or switch back to long stems.

Personally, I think that for a given rider and a given frame there is only one stem length that is the right length. You can change things up a bit by also raising and lowering the bar but if you are positioned correctly with a 90mm stem then switching to a 50mm stem will position you incorrectly.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

jstonebarger said:


> Um... My used Anthem came with a 35mm stem. It wears a 100mm stem now..


then you bought a bike a size or 2 to small.


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

d365 said:


> my theory is that it's evolved along with the slacker HA. I don't know what a 70º HA, and 40mm stem would steer like, even with the proper TT length, but I envision.... pretty twitchy.


I agree with your theory. However, my SC Blur has a 71 deg HA and I went from 110mm to 60mm and it's a lot of fun. But my bike before that was even steeper, so I'm becoming a slacker...or something.

ETA: the point I was heading toward is that people will always have a personal preference as to how twitchy they want their front end.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It is marketing conspiracy designed to sell an enormous backlog of long stems that we had made in China to help their economy get started. The needed to make something besides shipping containers.

I blame this on Nixon.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Years ago I initially fitted a short stem to improve comfort and then realised it improved the handling massively. I'm so used to them now I genuinely find it difficult to ride a bike with a long stem. I was once trying out a guy's bike and fell off turning round at the top of the drive! Long stem just tripped me up.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> IMO, the stem can only get so short before you start to get scrunched. If you do any kind of climbing...you're going to need to stretch out your back. If your stem is too short you can't do that. I've seen guys with stems so short and a bar so wide half their body is over the bar when they are down low trying to get up a climb. Nowadays the frames are designed around short stem. BMC's come stock with real short stems.


Yes, frames need more reach an TT length to go along.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

"Because it's lighter overall to shorten the top tube and downtube, than it is to shorten the stem." - XC race bike designer, 1990


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Compact frames developed for the same sort of reason; lighter to use a longer seaport.

Ooops.

Seatpost.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think it's just conservativism in evolving from road bikes. My old road bike felt weird with anything shorter than a 90 mm stem. Probably my new one too, but I haven't tried it.

I feel like uphill handling on a mountain bike gets weird with too short a stem. But people often do the short stem and wide bars at the same time. I think I lose some reach along the bike if my hands are further apart. I don't think stem length per se is very important. I think it's about weight distribution. So if a shorter stem and wider bars preserve my riding position on a bike, I'd expect the uphill handling to stay good. But I'm liking having my hands further apart - I feel more stable. So, Better At Everything. No wonder everybody's going to wider bars. Stem length is kind of a side effect of that change, IMO.

I think a lot of new designs are going for lighter front ends. And, people want to lighten the front ends on existing bikes. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it's no surprise that everyone is getting shorter stems. I think the aspirational image moving on from XC is part of that.


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

net wurker said:


> DJ, have you ever seen "Taxi Driver"?


DJ, have you ever seen movies about gladiators?

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

It's evolution, baby!

I skipped a few steps back in the late 90s and swapped my flat narrow bars and 140mm stem for a BMX stem and Answer Alumilite DH bars (with the removable shims that allowed me to use the BMX stem). It was great, but at the time I was more into doing jumps than xc/trail riding but it still seemed ok on the trails. 

The mountain bike has gradually evolved from a mix of road bike and cruiser/klunker, and with this "new breed" of long-low-slack bikes it seems like manufacturers are starting to free their thinking a bit more, and shorter stems are a part of that. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want their handlebars more than about 50-60mm in front of their head tube...


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Compact frames developed for the same sort of reason; lighter to use a longer seaport.


What the hell do seaports have to do with anything?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Finch Platte said:


> DJ, have you ever seen movies about gladiators?
> 
> Have you ever seen a grown man naked?


No!
And,
God no!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Bars and stem are imported through a seaport, just sayin. Every seen a grown man naked? Damn it, I spent 38 years in the Canadian Army and RCAF, so of course naked men were common, way too common. I haven't showered with a group since I retired 2 years ago and I'm enjoying the privacy. Once you have to $hit in front of your buddies you tend to lose your inhibitions. Who has not seen Gladiator? How did this thread descend to this?
Also, if I had looked like Robert Deniro maybe things would have turned out differently and I would be on a private jet forum instead of MTBR.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think it's just conservativism in evolving from road bikes. My old road bike felt weird with anything shorter than a 90 mm stem. Probably my new one too, but I haven't tried it.
> 
> I feel like uphill handling on a mountain bike gets weird with too short a stem. But people often do the short stem and wide bars at the same time. I think I lose some reach along the bike if my hands are further apart. I don't think stem length per se is very important. I think it's about weight distribution. So if a shorter stem and wider bars preserve my riding position on a bike, I'd expect the uphill handling to stay good. But I'm liking having my hands further apart - I feel more stable. So, Better At Everything. No wonder everybody's going to wider bars. Stem length is kind of a side effect of that change, IMO.
> 
> I think a lot of new designs are going for lighter front ends. And, people want to lighten the front ends on existing bikes. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it's no surprise that everyone is getting shorter stems. I think the aspirational image moving on from XC is part of that.


When it comes to front ends...I think its more about stability more than anything else. The more stable the bike is...the more fun descending will be. Who the heck wants a sketchy squirrely front end when going down a steep or loose terrain. The trade off tends to be that if you want a bike to shred downhill it's going to climb poorly. When you go wider...you don't loose reach (at least I don't think you do) instead you lose some height. Like removing a spacer from under the stem. That's why the wide bar + short stem ratio will only work to a certain extent. Doing a seated climb with your back shrimped out with your 35mm stem and 800mm bar has got to be horrible on a frame that's not designed around it.

I went to a couple early season races and checking out the bikes of the local XC racers...I did see a lot of 90mm+ stems out there. I also didn't notice a bunch of super wide bars either.

For road bikes yeah...if it's less than 80mm in length...the handling becomes weird. I run a 110mm on my road bike. Funny thing is that my Cervelo in a 54 came with a 90mm stem.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> No!
> And,
> God no!


Do you ever hang around the gymnasium?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Do you ever hang around the gymnasium?


Well that I do....NOT!


----------



## supersedona (Dec 17, 2012)

Mine came with the signature early 90s 120mm stem that was painted to match the frame. It was good on the pavement but it was endo-city on any kind of a dip in the trail. That coupled with an elastomer undampened fork was terrible. Fortunately my sport before mtb was gymnastics lol. Never been injured in an endo-dismount  


Now I run a 40mm stem and the frame is long enough that it doesn't really become a reach/climb problem but it still allows a far enough back position on the downhills that endos are extremely rare and insignificant of a concern.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

I have 70mm stems on my long travel hardtail and freeride bike. I'm 6'3 with long arms. Getting back in to a good descending position isn't an issue, but i don't always remember to get forward on the front wheel for corners. On my bikes a shorter stem just limits where i can comfortably put my weight with no handling benefit. On the new skool bikes with long front-centers and short stays i appreciate the short stem, but i haven't had one in my possession long enough to adapt my riding to what it wants... so i'm slower on them, although i recognize that i'd be faster with familiarity. 

To conclude, i don't give a crap what you think about my stem, this is the length that works for me on my bikes, and i don't intend to change until i have to.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm just spitballing here, but I believe keeping toptubes short were meant to keep wheelbases short enough for the old school trails, which were often hiking trails. Tight and twisty. This required a longer stem. Since most people weren't hucking stuff or bombing super steep terrain, it didn't matter much. It also worked well with the stupid narrow bars, which matched up with road bars (Tomac). New trails + new riding styles = new geometry. The lighter frame thing makes sense, too, as a lot of road racers ride a smaller frame with longer stem to minimize weight and increase stiffness.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I like my 100mm stem just fine.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> then you bought a bike a size or 2 to small.


No. He bought the right size. That bike was designed for a longer stem. You can't just buy a size larger, slap a short stem on it, and get all of the benefits of a bike designed around a short stem. Sure, you might get what you're looking for, but it won't be quite right.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

RS VR6 said:


> When it comes to front ends...I think its more about stability more than anything else. The more stable the bike is...the more fun descending will be. Who the heck wants a sketchy squirrely front end when going down a steep or loose terrain. The trade off tends to be that if you want a bike to shred downhill it's going to climb poorly. When you go wider...you don't loose reach (at least I don't think you do) instead you lose some height. Like removing a spacer from under the stem. That's why the wide bar + short stem ratio will only work to a certain extent. Doing a seated climb with your back shrimped out with your 35mm stem and 800mm bar has got to be horrible on a frame that's not designed around it.
> 
> I went to a couple early season races and checking out the bikes of the local XC racers...I did see a lot of 90mm+ stems out there. I also didn't notice a bunch of super wide bars either.
> 
> For road bikes yeah...if it's less than 80mm in length...the handling becomes weird. I run a 110mm on my road bike. Funny thing is that my Cervelo in a 54 came with a 90mm stem.


You know, now that I think about it, the increase in sweep going to wider bars (720, from 590) has been enough that I've ended up with the same stem. I am using a bit less drop from the saddle to the grips, however. Partly that's stuff I have around to build up my old bike, but I bought my new bike a +/- 5 mm bar and -17 degree 80 mm stem after having it slammed on a -17 degree 90 mm stem and a bar with more rise and sweep, and ended up pretty much just reverting to the same drop that I'd had. But with fewer goofy spacers on top of my stem, and more confidence that it's the right way to set it up and not just where I ended up when I ran out of adjustment range.

Over the same period, I also dropped some weight and got my schedule to be more regular. So I'm not sure if the position of my back is the same or if I'm riding in a lower position these days. Either seems possible.

I've seen a lot of wider bars at races lately. Not sure about stems. Definitely nothing so short that it doesn't follow the traditional shape, with a piece of tubing connected by two discrete clamps. I've also noticed a few inverted rise bars, probably partly because I bought one that sets up nicely that way for myself.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> If I had looked like Robert Deniro maybe things would have turned out differently..


And you could act really well?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No. He bought the right size. That bike was designed for a longer stem. You can't just buy a size larger, slap a short stem on it, and get all of the benefits of a bike designed around a short stem. Sure, you might get what you're looking for, but it won't be quite right.


I disagee. Bikes are not designed around anything and geometery engineers are not exactly picking the right number everyone.

I am 5'8 I recent bought a large trance because I knew the TT and Reach were roughly about the same as my other bike. If I was forced to use the stock stem Id have to by a M. I know the M is too small though because this is how my 5'5 GF looks a on M trance.










If I walked walk into a Giant Dealership and said I wanted a trance there is no way I d end up a on large, heck I could not fit one with the stock 100 mm stem anyways. but with me zero offset seat post, 35mm bars and swept back bars, I have the right lenght cockpit with the wheel in front of me. Easy as hell to climb as well because I am way forward on the rail.

Since I technically own both a M and a Large trance I also know I am faster on the L trance by a good margin. the bike were set up the same except I had to run 90mm stem on the M. Not to mention I feel way better in rough stuff on the large.

So again with Anthem which has a slightl smaller reach number vs the trance if I walked into a Giant Dealer and had them set me up on bike I would still end up M. I would end up hating it as it would feel like an endo machine, and the steering would be twitchy. So until someone else has some actual hard data that short TT,long stem is faster. than a loner TT short stem, I am going to stay on my high horse and keep telling people that they are wrong. There is no disadvantage to the set up once you get use to it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

John Kuhl said:


> I like my 100mm stem just fine.


So do I, on my cyclocross bike. It is awsome on the road and flats.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I disagee. Bikes are not designed around anything and geometery engineers are not exactly picking the right number everyone.
> 
> I am 5'8 I recent bought a large trance because I knew the TT and Reach were roughly about the same as my other bike. If I was forced to use the stock stem Id have to by a M. I know the M is too small though because this is how my 5'5 GF looks a on M trance.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of disadvantages to riding a bike that is too big for you. Increased wheelbase, less standover clearance, more weight, higher center of gravity, less weight on the front wheel for climbing, etc. Like I said, you might get what you want by doing that, but the bike was not designed for it. You really don't think that the designers and engineers factored stem length and bar width into their geometry? Things like trail, headtube angles, and the bike's applications are a few of the things that determine proper geometry and factor into the proper stem length. Buying a bike that is too big and slapping a short stem on it will likely degrade the bike's overall ride quality. There is much more to a bike's fit than reach. Disagree if you want, it sounds like it works for you, but I'll trust the bicycle engineers and testers.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I tried a 60mm and didn't feel the magical handling transformation that most of you seem to get, I just felt jammed up. The reach on my current frame allows me to be pretty comfy with an 80mm and I'm fine with that. Would love to try a frame that allows the same seat/handlebar distance with a shorter stem but one hasn't come my way yet.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Disagree if you want, it sounds like it works for you, but I'll trust the bicycle engineers and testers.


The key point is that for many years the conventional wisdom applied by engineers and testers led to 100mm or longer stems on bikes with small amounts of reach, steep head tubes, and all of the handling ills downhill that come with that. Worse, when the majority of bike testers come in with a lot of expectations about being easy to ride, the qualifications are usually the most passionate people with the skillset to write eloquently - not brilliant bike handling or a finely tuned butt-dyno to understand what's going on, or if a ride characteristic they dislike is an inherent frame performance issue or simply being off a couple clicks of rebound/compression adjustments on an otherwise correctly set suspension part. End result - bikes that feel the best to the median rider, not really much development in performance for progressive riders, and none of the trickle down benefits that provides.

Chris Porter summed it up well in the MBR article - basically that setup made amazing canal path bikes, which if they're made lightweight also are phenomenal XC racing rigs going up climbs (and still rideable with better tires and forks), but doesn't mean those geometry choices are anything other than a local maximum of performance.

Further Reading:
Size matters: why we?re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR
Size matters part 2: Finding the limits of geometry and sizing - MBR
Size matters part 3: why bicycle geometry sucks - MBR


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Just sticking a shorter stem on a bike without changing anything else has generally not made me very happy either. Which is why I think the wider bars thing is part of it, even if that's not playing out that strongly on my personal bikes.

The other thing I sometimes wonder is if people had bikes that fit them well in the first place. When I go riding, I see a number of men of a certain age and BMI catching their breath at the tops of descending trails. Even if someone who weighs more than he has to and needs to stop and rest frequently is the same height as I am, he's not going to have the same riding position. If he hopped on one of my bikes, he might feel kind of stretched out, and getting an aftermarket, shorter stem would feel pretty awesome, probably especially on the descents. On the other hand, if I shorten up the reach on one of my bikes and then climb like I mean it, it mauls my back.

I was briefly threatened by the "bikes for the rest of us" movement, but the thing is that I'm the dominant target customer for the bike companies. Maybe by aspirational image, I'm still a little younger and making a little less money, and that was even more true when I first became aware of that movement. I can walk into a bike shop, buy a stock medium, 52 cm, or 17" or 18" bike and have a pretty strong chance that I can get "my" cockpit setup just by adjusting what comes on the bike. I've usually ended up buying some stuff, but it's definitely more on the 20% side of the 80/20 rule. But that does imply to me that most bikes aren't sold in a great way for the people who are actually buying them. Getting the stuff to make them really fit right would be pretty revelatory.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain biking used to be about more than just the downhills. It appears that riders these days will sacrifice climbing and flats (the majority of riding outside of a bike park) for more capable descending. I'm not judging that. Heck, my trail bike is skewed for the descents as well, but some people also enjoy a good climb or meandering trail now and then. It isn't wrong to set your bike up for all-around riding if that's what you're into. There are sacrifices made to design a bike with a longer front end, shorter stem, and wider bar. Those sacrifices aren't worth it to everybody.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Well, friends, there is a reason that some people buy custom bikes. Funny thing is that over the years they are built to meet the geometry of the day and with the materials of the day.

I can't say I understand all this fervor about some absolute truth. I've seen that change over the years but, in the end, it is only matter of centimeters, conditions, and capabilities.

I buy off the rack, adjust the seat to where it always belongs, put my hands where they are comfortable, and ride.

At the same time being further end of the age curve I don't spend much time outside the envelope, no longer race, and seldom get up in the air anymore. On one hand my skills are long-practiced, on the other my bikes have _always_ exceeded my capability.

Long bikes and stems started this all. A riders ability to get their center of gravity low and distributed along the length of the bike when and where needed made speed and handling possible. Going from tubes to extruded and layer-up shapes, from rigid to dual-suspension, tossing in dropper seat posts, and a nearly infinte selection of bars, have made speed and handling more accessible with different a skill-set.

Funny, with so much emphasis on stem length there is little talk about bars. Some of you old-timer MTBR denizens may recall the discussions around going from flat bars to risers in the late 90s. For me it all came down to where you wanted your hands. I'm not so sure that things are much different now.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Stems haven't been too long, top tubes/reach have been too short.


Yup, and the reach/top tubes are still too short on many bikes. Most of the AM/Enduro bikes have finally gotten proper bike length figured out, but lots of XC/trail bikes are still using the short frame, long stem, endo prone riding position.

Let's look at this for instance Santa Cruz Tallboy I'm 5'11 with ape arms and I'd need at least an XL to get a long enough reach. So I'm going to be stuck with a long stem and oh yeah, a steeper head tube angle which just makes it worse. I will hate the XL because the front end is already high on a 29er and the longer headtube just makes it worse, which will then require a serious negative rise stem to fix and that just makes the bike even more unbalanced. Yes I've tried the bike, the fit & handling sucks for me.

Or I could get this: KONA BIKES | 2016 BIKES | HEI HEI | Hei Hei DL Race A large has more reach than the Santa Cruz XL and the top tube is longer than the L. I can put a shorter stem on it and have a proper fit, and since the head tube angle is slacker as well (putting the front wheel further out in front) it's not going to endo unless I really bung it up. It fits and rides much better. The only downside is the wheelbase is about 1.5" longer, but even that's debatable since I've yet to see a trail where a 1.5" difference in wheelbase makes it go from rideable to unrideable.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Mountain biking used to be about more than just the downhills. It appears that riders these days will sacrifice climbing and flats (the majority of riding outside of a bike park) for more capable descending. I'm not judging that. Heck, my trail bike is skewed for the descents as well, but some people also enjoy a good climb or meandering trail now and then. It isn't wrong to set your bike up for all-around riding if that's what you're into. There are sacrifices made to design a bike with a longer front end, shorter stem, and wider bar. Those sacrifices aren't worth it to everybody.


Considering that materials science, suspension technology, and tire design have all conspired to make bikes in general more capable uphill, why not have a bike that is just as good as last decade's bikes uphill, but still shred all the way back down? With wider bars, I have no trouble keeping front pressure high enough to climb comfortably, and over technical climbs I'm actually in better shape. Over boring climbs, since I'm not on the clock, I don't really care that I see no improvement: I'm already daydreaming about coming back down.

I think BM nailed a key point - savvy bike buyers have caught on that having a bike that exceeds the rider's capability is universally a good thing, and a trivial weight and geometry tradeoff to have a bike that will bail out the rider over interesting stuff is a lot of added value at any skill level and price range.

Being 6'2", lanky, and more athletic than actually skilled - I adore that I can get a useful wagon wheeler with some significant travel, and this is what has pulled me back into mountain biking. The tradeoffs you speak of are all net benefit items for riders like me, and over time the material science is marginalizing a lot of those downsides (29er wheels are flexy and flimsy - how about cheap carbon; prosaic bottom brackets take away maneuverability - larger volume air cans with good low speed compression/rebound tunes that allow for good travel at lower starting points; etc.)

As far as concerns about stack heights getting out of hand on LT 29ers or even 650+ bikes, we're actually going back to flat bars on a lot of those (or 5-10mm rise setups, even running 5mm rise bars inverted) which keeps the effective cockpit stack useful (just comes with variable amounts of upsweep, depending on bar shape), and even leaning on negative rise stems can get all of those details fixed -- in a lot of instances, beefier carbon layups can keep the head tube lengths under 5", which really helps a lot there; on slacker bikes the shorter stems are also moving the bar center mount point physically lower in space (bring the bar back and down in nearly 1:sqrt3 ratio respectively) can all work towards getting a good, low cockpit.

For my part I'm close to the stack limit for comfort (150mm Pike, 120mm Head Tube, one 10mm spacer, 70mm stem @ -6° rise, and 750mm bar w/ 10mm Rise/9° backsweep 5° upsweep -- net HTA of 66.8°), and only have one more spacer of potential drop (I've tried with the stem slammed, and didn't like it, the above setup works perfectly for me), so while that is a concern, I know I could run a drop stem and still be in good shape contact point wise, but it sucks knowing that if I size up for my next bike I'll probably be buying it with a stem I can't use.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

While we're at ti we need of figure in the thickness of the padding on our gloves and the thickness of grips.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Mountain biking used to be about more than just the downhills. It appears that riders these days will sacrifice climbing and flats (the majority of riding outside of a bike park) for more capable descending. I'm not judging that. Heck, my trail bike is skewed for the descents as well, but some people also enjoy a good climb or meandering trail now and then. It isn't wrong to set your bike up for all-around riding if that's what you're into. There are sacrifices made to design a bike with a longer front end, shorter stem, and wider bar. Those sacrifices aren't worth it to everybody.


I couldn't agree more. To me descending is desert but I guess to others it's most of the meal.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> There are plenty of disadvantages to riding a bike that is too big for you. Increased wheelbase, less standover clearance, more weight, higher center of gravity, less weight on the front wheel for climbing, etc. Like I said, you might get what you want by doing that, but the bike was not designed for it. You really don't think that the designers and engineers factored stem length and bar width into their geometry? Things like trail, headtube angles, and the bike's applications are a few of the things that determine proper geometry and factor into the proper stem length. Buying a bike that is too big and slapping a short stem on it will likely degrade the bike's overall ride quality. There is much more to a bike's fit than reach. Disagree if you want, it sounds like it works for you, but I'll trust the bicycle engineers and testers.


first some of these are flat out wrong.

Increase wheelbase can and usually is a good thing.

less standover yes, but again the bike companies that get it do not increase standover as the bike gets bigger. there is no good reason to increase standover as the bike gets bigger.

more weight - yes but if weight was the only thing that matter we would all be riding rigid fixed gear that are to small for us.

Higher COG - first the COG is going to vary my mere MM. If you are standing the weight is mostly in the pedals and the size of the bike is not going to affect that.

less weight on the front end. Again why do you need weight on the front end?

I think that Kona, transition, and Mondraker have factor stem lenght in as there stems do not get longer as the bikes getter bigger. Any Bike model that has stems get longer as the bikes get bigger is really not doing their home work.

The bike is not really to big if you plan to run it with a short cockpit. Its not I agree or disagree its that I know at least on the Trance I am faster on the exact same set up on the 35mm stem large vs the M with a 90mm Stem. Not just down but up. I would see no reason why that trend would not continue on any other bike.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I tried a 60mm and didn't feel the magical handling transformation that most of you seem to get, I just felt jammed up. The reach on my current frame allows me to be pretty comfy with an 80mm and I'm fine with that. Would love to try a frame that allows the same seat/handlebar distance with a shorter stem but one hasn't come my way yet.


again you have to be on longer frame to run a shorter stem, you can nt just slap the short stem on and expect it to ride nice.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Stems haven't been too long, top tubes/reach have been too short.


Yeah, you're right. Stem length is adjusted to fit the rider to the bike. If the stem is too long as a result, the top tube is too short.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Mountain biking used to be about more than just the downhills. It appears that riders these days will sacrifice climbing and flats (the majority of riding outside of a bike park) for more capable descending. I'm not judging that. Heck, my trail bike is skewed for the descents as well, but some people also enjoy a good climb or meandering trail now and then. It isn't wrong to set your bike up for all-around riding if that's what you're into. There are sacrifices made to design a bike with a longer front end, shorter stem, and wider bar. Those sacrifices aren't worth it to everybody.


not so sure on that. I acutally like the new geometery for climbing as well with the Steep STA and lots of room to move. They bike climbs technical stuff better than my old XC bikes.

I will agree on the flats. My FS is actually a pain in the ass to ride on flats as I have to keep dropping to post to manuever the bike at all. My SS has very similar geo but a shorter rear end and being hard tail just feel better on flat and rolling terrain. We do not have tons of flat or rolling terrain here if we did I may own something less biased toward going UP and Down.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yes, frames need more reach an TT length to go along.


Or they can just have a longer stem.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think the real point is not how long the stem is, but how long the front-center distance is.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Can anyone who is arguing for the "nays" please explain how on an average mountain bike having your weight resting on a 100mm+ lever that is trying to tip you forward over the front axle is advantageous? 

I believe that with another 3-5 years of bike geometry evolution you won't see a new mountain bike with more than a 50mm stem, even in the XC category. The only reason for running anything longer is because your TT is too short...


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I think its fair to say that mountain bikes used to really suck. Its not that I dont like them, I had a total blast riding my 90's GT fully rigid! It was incredibly fun. Boring trails were transformed into skillful fun... but the bike certainly did suck. I wasnt going anywhere fast on that thing. 

Riding has changed so much. A oldskool downhill race is a boring fire road these days. Most of us wouldnt waste the gas to ride courses like that now. 

Ive noticed that trails have changed to fit these new bikes. Flow trails are a thing now. We couldnt go a day without talk of switchbacks (people loved switchbacks!) just a few years ago. I dont think ive heard anyone mention them lately though. The love for technical climbing seems to have died down a bit too. I doubt the thought of building a bike to go fast down a fire road crosses anyones mind much either.

I sort of think that bikes might be changing to fit riding styles and current trails, instead of really improving wholly. If fire road racing got popular for some reason, I think we'd see the short stems die off again.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Bikes are just different. You can have a lot of fun on old bikes because they had a wheelbase like a BMX bike and it really forced you to show your skills, else you'd get thrown to the ground. New bikes make riding easier. You would have to go really fast on them to feel some of their limits, but oftentimes there's "natural speed limits" (tight turns, dirt with low traction, poor vision, etc.) on trails that prevent you from frequently reaching those limits. On those short wheelbase bikes, hitting a 3" tall rock or root made it react so sharply that it twanged your wheel up for some short but sweet air time. That slows down racers and makes the ride wild/stable if there are a lot of obstacles you can't avoid, but that is something some people miss as it was fun for them. Not everyone's out there to try and get a fast lap time around their trails. The guys that look boring but are fast and smooth, like Greg Minnaar, are on long bikes. Greg has custom "GM Links" that lengthen his DH bike. The guys on tighter geo look like they're putting out more than twice the effort, looking awesome on camera, but are going no faster. As bikes got slacker, riders were able to ride faster with less effort, and riders who were masterful at taming the short bikes like Tomac and Sam Hill gradually faded from the spotlight.










In this pic from VitalMTB, it shows a custom ano link--there's got to be at least half an inch extra between his BB and tire, thanks to the new link and how rearward it gets when it compresses. Heck, even with the front compressed, the wheels look really far apart. Even GM's clown sized shoe doesn't come close to the front tire. 

People are just out to find the happy medium or something, lengthening the front but keeping the rear short, or shortening the front and lengthening the rear (ex. Ripley, Anthem X 29, Tallboy LTc). A lot of the money is in Tweener products these days, promising that happy medium people are after (even if they aren't conscious that they want it), with plus tire sizes, 27.5 wheel size, cinch cranks that fit all BB standards, 15QR, boost 148, tubeless ready tires requiring sealant, clipless pedals with platforms, etc. Doesn't stop there, with extra coverage helmets, boxer briefs, mid calf socks, knee pads with extra shin coverage, oversized sunglasses that are like mini goggles with regular ear stems, minimalistic shoes that are between barefoot and full-on running shoes, etc.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Learned from this thread that some posting have no idea what they are talking about and have no idea how a bike can fit best or what wheelbase and such affect the bike.
> 
> AND short stems are stoopid for anthing but racing DH or AM. IMO


A couple of points, All Mountain is simply mountain biking without being handicapped by crappy one dimensional equipment. You ride up and down pretty much anything. This is the essence of mountain biking and yes short stems and wide bars are great for this. What advantages do long, greater than 60mm stems have. Great if you are a dental surgeon, but what else?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

zrm said:


> Or they can just have a longer stem.


Again, explain the advantage of a long stem.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Again, explain the advantage of a long stem.


It slows down steering on bikes that are already too twitchy. It makes bikes that are too small fit better too.

Ill agree that its a solution to a problem you shouldnt be having if you got the right bike though.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> A couple of points, All Mountain is simply mountain biking without being handicapped by crappy one dimensional equipment. You ride up and down pretty much anything. This is the essence of mountain biking and yes short stems and wide bars are great for this. What advantages do long, greater than 60mm stems have. Great if you are a dental surgeon, but what else?


Apparently Flucod is speaking about you, since you missed how he stated that wheelbase and fit affect the bike. Those are way more important than trying to adjust things so you can more comfortably run a shorter stem.

It's a common mistake to focus on a few figures (ex. CS length, reach, HA), giving some priority and treating the others as a second thought that's okay if it's in a certain range, when trying to figure out what kind of ride handling characteristics you want in a bike, as you'd most likely end up on something you did not fully expect. You've got to give every figure some consideration. Admittedly, there are geo figures that just happen to be a result of trying to tune handling through positioning of the axles are and where the rider contact points are in relation to the axles, but some of these resulting geo figures are currently trendy to focus on (ex. HA).

Longer stems "slowing down steering" can be a bit confusing without the context. It's like turning down the sensitivity on your computer mouse, so you can do something that requires more pinpoint accuracy. You have to give it more movement to make it turn the same amount as a shorter stem. When would you need to turn your handlebars with twitch reactions anyways? I think it's more of a lame solution to address the real issue of bikes getting slacker, but fork offsets remaining too short, and mechanical trail getting too out of hand. How about you tell us the disadvantages of a longer stem?

Also, All Mountain is a riding style where you ride up a mountain for the purpose of gaining elevation, to use it for gravity fueled fun on trail much more challenging than the one you climbed up, earning your turns. Enduro is AM riding that simply puts more emphasis on the DH part, turning it into a competition/race that puts many things to the test (your fitness, skills, navigation, preparation, recovery ability, strategies, gear, etc.). XC typically rides up and back down the same difficulty trail, carefully avoiding gnarly DH that would be too difficult to even climb up. DH is about skipping out on pedaling the bike back up, focusing on enjoying the descent no matter how easy or hard. Trail is about instant gratification style riding, minimizing things you do not like, but maximizing the things you feel are fun, cutting out the long boring climbs if you are after the sweet descents and there's a short and sweet one more accessible, or cutting out the mtn altogether if you're just after the chunk, drops, and jumps if they're in a more accessible location near town, cutting out the ride on the road to the trailhead even if you do not like it.


----------



## trom (Apr 22, 2015)

Back in the 90s we were on fully rigid 26" bikes with 1.8" tires. Forks and rear suspension were in the infancy. To ride tech trails you were using a ton of dynamic balance and body english. I don't think people really wanted bikes that felt more stable cruising the chunk back then. They wanted bikes that were easy to move arround on fore and aft and had quick steering for low speed manuverability. 

Hence most bikes have the compact style frames that are more similar to what was popular on the roads at that time. The longish stems are a natural outgrowth of the types of frames people were building based on fit.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Again, explain the advantage of a long stem.


Correct fit.

There is no bike out there that I would feel comfortable riding with a stem shorter than ~120. It would have to be so huge that I could sit inside the front triangle. I've ridden modernist bikes with stems in the 60-70 range and it was no bueno.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Now that bars are getting wider, and tube tube angle slacker, long stems aren't needed to slow down twitchy steering. Or it could be Nixon's fault, not sure.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Shayne said:


> Correct fit.
> 
> There is no bike out there that I would feel comfortable riding with a stem shorter than ~120. It would have to be so huge that I could sit inside the front triangle. I've ridden modernist bikes with stems in the 60-70 range and it was no bueno.


how long is your corrent ETT?


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Again, explain the advantage of a long stem.


A shorter wheelbase. Less frame and lower frame weight.

Slacker head angles run longer forks, which adds further to both the wheelbase and the weight of the bike.

The advantage is: a longer stem allows you to ride a lighter and tighter handling bike.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> first some of these are flat out wrong.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


Because other people have different preferences or skill sets than you do. Congratulations on finding this worked for you. It doesn't work for me unless the bike is designed around the shorter stem and wider bars. Too many compromises elsewhere. It also appears that those people who can't wrap their heads around other options just don't have the talent, experience, or skill to understand. Sorry to call you out, but your generalizations are short-sighted and depth of knowledge is limited.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

trom said:


> Back in the 90s we were on fully rigid 26" bikes with 1.8" tires. Forks and rear suspension were in the infancy. To ride tech trails you were using a ton of dynamic balance and body english. I don't think people really wanted bikes that felt more stable cruising the chunk back then. They wanted bikes that were easy to move arround on fore and aft and had quick steering for low speed manuverability.
> 
> Hence most bikes have the compact style frames that are more similar to what was popular on the roads at that time. The longish stems are a natural outgrowth of the types of frames people were building based on fit.


Yep. The bikes and trails of the day didn't really focus on bombing chunky tech at high speeds. Trails were either relatively smooth fire roads, double track, or tight and twisty hiking trails. No suspension, crappy tires, questionable brakes, etc. required a smooth line and the ability to manuever around obstacles. Kids these days need to get off the flow trails once in a while.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> how long is your corrent ETT?


They vary between 23.25" and 24.25" on 71*-71.5* headtubes


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yep. The bikes and trails of the day didn't really focus on bombing chunky tech at high speeds. Trails were either relatively smooth fire roads, double track, or tight and twisty hiking trails. No suspension, crappy tires, questionable brakes, etc. required a smooth line and the ability to manuever around obstacles. Kids these days need to get off the flow trails once in a while.


Actually the chunky bucking bronco style of riding with the seat flying between your thighs was pretty dammed cool and at the edge of my envelope. Took a lot of skill with 2.1 tires, 60 mm travel, 20 inch bars. But that is what we had and that is what we rode. Ate lots of weeds and gave up lots of skin.

But I was in my early 40s 20 years ago and I'm glad to have better bikes to ride.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm just spitballing here, but I believe keeping toptubes short were meant to keep wheelbases short enough for the old school trails, which were often hiking trails. Tight and twisty. This required a longer stem. Since most people weren't hucking stuff or bombing super steep terrain, it didn't matter much. It also worked well with the stupid narrow bars, which matched up with road bars (Tomac). New trails + new riding styles = new geometry. The lighter frame thing makes sense, too, as a lot of road racers ride a smaller frame with longer stem to minimize weight and increase stiffness.


^^^^^^THIS
The answer is maneuverability. Older bikes where designed with nimbleness and cornering first and foremost. There was no lift access bike parks back then, trails were not as steep, many trails were just hiking trails and not designed to allow bikes to go fast, and since suspension was a joke back then people were not riding through chunk or taking big drops like we do now. Also, realistically you can only go so fast on a trail with roots and rocks without proper suspension. Bikes now are designed for speed, chunk, drops, super steep terrain and overall gnar and this is first and foremost in their design.



Travis Bickle said:


> Again, explain the advantage of a long stem.


The question you should be asking is "explain the advantage of a short wheelbase."

Compared to new geo bikes with "forward geo" these older bikes with long stems had up to 8" shorter wheel base which makes for a very maneuverable bike that can run circles around a bike with new style geo.

I live in Tahoe and out the back door of my house are some very old school MTB trails, very tight and twisty, no drops, not too steep and hardly any room to get up to a fast speed. I have a few old school mtbs from the 90's and these bikes rail on these trails. My longer wheel base, higher stack, slack HA full squish AM bike is very sluggish on these trails, difficult to maneuver and not as fast or anywhere near as fun.

Out the front door of my house is the TRT, black diamond, super steep, gnar chunk with drops and plenty of room to get stupid with speed. My AM bike rails on these trails, while my old school 90's MTBs with their low stack, zero or up to 3" of suspension and steep HA's pretty much become death traps on this type of trail.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

knutso said:


> A shorter wheelbase. Less frame and lower frame weight.
> 
> Slacker head angles run longer forks, which adds further to both the wheelbase and the weight of the bike.
> 
> The advantage is: a longer stem allows you to ride a lighter and tighter handling bike.


More weight on the front wheel on climbs too.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Shayne said:


> They vary between 23.25" and 24.25" on 71*-71.5* headtubes


so are you stems the same lenght on the you 23.25 and your 24.25 bikes?


----------



## allen mueller (Mar 23, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> As bikes got slacker, riders were able to ride faster with less effort, and riders who were masterful at taming the short bikes like Tomac and Sam Hill gradually faded from the spotlight.


Sam Hill is still kicking ass last year he won two world cups and a had a second. He also got a 9th at a EWS this year before he got injured. It's safe to say he still in the spotlight.

Al


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Nope, they range from 130 to 150.
All my mtbs are set up with the same tip of saddle to center of bar clamp measurement which requires some stem length fine tuning depending on frame angles.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Shayne said:


> Nope, they range from 130 to 150.
> All my mtbs are set up with the same tip of saddle to center of bar clamp measurement which requires some stem length fine tuning depending on frame angles.


so if you went to a 25..5 TT would you still run a 150 stem?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Probably not.
I'd have to build it up to know.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> More weight on the front wheel on climbs too.


Pretty much my take too.

One could also accomplish that with a head tube that was further out and steeper. It would have a shorter stem and the same front-center, and probably climb fairly nicely. But I think it would be pretty weird at speed.

I sometimes wonder what maintaining the same front-center distance and slackening the head angle would be like. I'd need a longer stem to have "my" riding position on that bike. I guess there's supposed to be a wheel flop problem at low speed? Though people are quite happy to have 65 and 66 degree head angles on more AM-focused bikes.

It doesn't really bother me if other people aren't into climbing interesting stuff. They do their climbs, I do mine, whatever. I don't really believe that any one class has a lock on versatility either. XC bikes still sometimes have 69 degree head angles, or steeper, even, and they feel pretty versatile to me if they're my size and not set up with stupid components. AM bikes have surprised me with their versatility. I think if people get the bike that emphasizes what they want to emphasize, most likely they'll be happy. Outside of shuttling, we all climb the same number of vertical feet we descend, people just have different approaches.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I know one thing this thread has taught me. Next time I pick out a stem erase 90% of what's contained within these walls. This thread makes me feel like I'm in a washing machine. Every time something makes sense another fine example of wisdom pops up.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Nothing beats experience. All the theories in the world, all the marketing, all the anecdotes have to survive personal experience.

I have had people tell that experts say X about Y. Good enough. Well...then...what do I do with my 27 years of mountain bikes, teams, training and such, if it doesn't agree with what the experts say? It might be different if I was having a problem with Y but I'm not. So my experience tells me that I must be doing something right.

Threads like this are fabulous, whether we agree or not. But all the authority in the world still has to survive the measure of my experience.

And what if you don't have experience? How do you separate the wheat from the chaff? That is a special skill of its own.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

knutso said:


> A shorter wheelbase. Less frame and lower frame weight.
> 
> Slacker head angles run longer forks, which adds further to both the wheelbase and the weight of the bike.
> 
> The advantage is: a longer stem allows you to ride a lighter and tighter handling bike.





singletrackmack said:


> The answer is maneuverability. Older bikes where designed with nimbleness and cornering first and foremost...
> 
> The question you should be asking is "explain the advantage of a short wheelbase."
> 
> *Compared to new geo bikes with "forward geo" these older bikes with long stems had up to 8" shorter wheel base which makes for a very maneuverable bike that can run circles around a bike with new style geo.*





mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm just spitballing here, but I believe keeping toptubes short were meant to keep wheelbases short enough for the old school trails, which were often hiking trails. Tight and twisty. This required a longer stem.


It's all about wheel base. These bikes with long stems have a much shorter wheel base than new geo bikes and are way more nimble. But it takes skill to ride this type of bike and because of their maneuverability and quickness they are super fun to ride, if you know what your doing.

It's like comparing a modern car with traction and stability control you can't shut off, and automatic gear box and front wheel drive to an old sports car with no traction or stability control, manual gear box and rear wheel drive. if you don't know how to drive a stick or handle power to the rear wheels with no traction control, the old sports car is going to be very hard to handle, but if you know what your doing, it is a sh!t ton of fun.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Nothing beats experience. All the theories in the world, all the marketing, all the anecdotes have to survive personal experience.
> 
> I have had people tell that experts say X about Y. Good enough. Well...then...what do I do with my 27 years of mountain bikes, teams, training and such, if it doesn't agree with what the experts say? It might be different if I was having a problem with Y but I'm not. So my experience tells me that I must be doing something right.
> 
> ...


experince is almost meaningless if its being used to put your head in the sand and say my way right because I have been doing it for so long! Just because something has been done some way and is no tradition doesnt give it any merit.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

BushwackerinPA said:


> experince is almost meaningless if its being used to put your head in the sand and say my way right because I have been doing it for so long! Just because something has been done some way and is no tradition doesnt give it any merit.


yeah, but it's usually better to learn from someone with decades in the sport, who's done tons to help newbs and the very experienced alike, and knows the grassroots of the sport, rather than from some yahoo on the interwebz


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

theMeat said:


> yeah, but it's usually better to learn from someone with decades in the sport, who's done tons to help newbs and the very experienced alike, and knows the grassroots of the sport, rather than from some yahoo on the interwebz


would you rather learn how to ski from someone who started on straight skis and never really change their technique when new ski came about, or would you rather learn how to ski from someone who learned to ski on newer stuff and has no idea of how it use to be and just does what right instead of what they use to do?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> It's all about wheel base. These bikes with long stems have a much shorter wheel base than new geo bikes and are way more nimble. But it takes skill to ride this type of bike and because of their maneuverability and quickness they are super fun to ride, if you know what your doing.
> 
> It's like comparing a modern car with traction and stability control you can't shut off, and automatic gear box and front wheel drive to an old sports car with no traction or stability control, manual gear box and rear wheel drive. if you don't know how to drive a stick or handle power to the rear wheels with no traction control, the old sports car is going to be very hard to handle, but if you know what your doing, it is a sh!t ton of fun.


whats wrong with FWD? I use to crush AX comps with a FWD car, routinely got Fastest time of the day in 1990 Civic.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

BushwackerinPA said:


> would you rather learn how to ski from someone who started on straight skis and never really change their technique when new ski came about, or would you rather learn how to ski from someone who learned to ski on newer stuff and has no idea of how it use to be and just does what right instead of what they use to do?


I'd rather learn from the person with a vast amount of experience -- whether skiing or mountain biking -- independent of what type of equipment that person is used to. That's because that person has learned to organize and react to the dozens of relevant pieces of data that are available to him or her during the seconds or fractions of second of a maneuver. That person knows the 3D position of his/her bike in the terrain and the velocity vectors of both wheels, the desired line, front and rear traction, weight distribution, current shock and fork compression and motion etc., etc., etc. That person can adjust to a longer or shorter stem because he or she knows what it does to bike behavior and body position. It's hardly ever about the equipment.

It's true that the "traditionalists" will fight the "new ideas" and that the "young guns" will reject traditions -- both to their own detriment. But, I'll always side with experience if it's my choice.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Let me start by saying, I'm no young gun. 57, mountain biking for 28 years, lived and rode all over Canada and now in a mtb Mecca in BC. Amazing trails out my door from tight and twisty to DH. To quote some General who gave us a talk a few years back "we have always done it that way is not a good enough reason". One of the few things I remember from countless speeches and talks from commanders over my career, but it stuck in my head.

I measured the wheelbase on my medium 98 Explosif, 1100mm and my medium Warden is 1162mm. 62mm difference, less than 3". The old Kona climbs and handles tight trails amazingly, the Warden climbs about as well unless it's chunky, then it's better. The Warden in the steep setting with a 66.5 HTA does quite well on very tight trails, but not quite as well as the Kona. The Warden however can tackle true DH runs, the Explosif, not under me. I'm sure there is a few bike savants out there that can ride anything on it, but not me, and probably not you. However, just watch the like of Road Bike Party for the exception. 

As for climbing, a few years ago I took my old XC hardtail (frame a store brand from Universal Cycles) which was near identical to the Explosif out to my local trail. It had a 90mm stem and 710 bar, and I brought a 60 and 70mm with me. I tried the same steep climb that is right on the edge of my ability with all 3 stems. I found there was no change in climbing ability between the different stems. I was pretty surprised as this went against what I thought I knew about mountain biking. The body bends and adapts quite easily. I stuck with the 70mm on that bike as the TT and reach were just too short for less. The bike was more capable on downs and in the rough though, it was just a better all round bike.

How many here have experimented like this to see what happens? I currently trialling a 35mm, down from 50mm on the Warden. Still making all the climbs I was with the 50, but with a little more confidence going down very steep tracks.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

borabora said:


> I'd rather learn from the person with a vast amount of experience -- whether skiing or mountain biking -- independent of what type of equipment that person is used to. That's because that person has learned to organize and react to the dozens of relevant pieces of data that are available to him or her during the seconds or fractions of second of a maneuver. That person knows the 3D position of his/her bike in the terrain and the velocity vectors of both wheels, the desired line, front and rear traction, weight distribution, current shock and fork compression and motion etc., etc., etc. That person can adjust to a longer or shorter stem because he or she knows what it does to bike behavior and body position. It's hardly ever about the equipment.
> 
> It's true that the "traditionalists" will fight the "new ideas" and that the "young guns" will reject traditions -- both to their own detriment. But, I'll always side with experience if it's my choice.


You go try to learn how to ski powder from someone who has never been on a wider than 75mm underfoot ski while you ski big fat boards. Trust me the tactics used will be vastly different.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Skis have zero the comparison capability to a bicycle though, they store energy enabling the turn. A Bicycle will always have the rider mass return over the bottom bracket and that is the only storage of any energy equivalent. 
Longer stem reach promotes a more-constant riding position. Any flicking of the front end is met with mild protest, significant DH runs are restricted and, the overall riding experience is like that of a road ride: cadence based and distance oriented.
Riding up in ski country I pick up alot of wishful integration of ski technique to trail construction; berms on flat stretches of trail lacking an apex and then ability to mark any apex. Even still they are nowhere tall enough to be much more than turn indicators instead of tools to maintain speed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> You go try to learn how to ski powder from someone who has never been on a wider than 75mm underfoot ski while you ski big fat boards. Trust me the tactics used will be vastly different.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with riding a bike.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think it's a great comparison. And I think analogy to things that are similar in some ways and different in others is a great way to gain insight.

If you watch old Warren Miller videos, you see guys stitching together a billion little turns on powder. Now, it's a few big turns. I think that's the equipment.

I don't know if I think technique on groomers has changed, bit it's definitely easier to learn to do it well on the new stuff. Back in the day, not many people could get a nice, locked-in carve, but it's become a lot easier. I don't generally see a ton of parallel between mountain biking and groomer skiing, but I do think that a lot of the new equipment has made an efficient, flowy style more accessible.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> would you rather learn how to ski from someone who started on straight skis and never really change their technique when new ski came about, or would you rather learn how to ski from someone who learned to ski on newer stuff and has no idea of how it use to be and just does what right instead of what they use to do?


I think it a mistake to disregard at least portions of this perspective.

I really like the stick-shift, rear-wheel-drive analogy. An analogy we use all the time is learning to ride on a HT and what it does for your skills.

However, that doesn't mean you need to learn on a stick to be a good driver or learn on a HT to be a good rider.

As for disregarding experience...I learned a long time ago to not follow an old throttle twister because I just end up in the junipers. 

You either appreciate experience or you don't. After you have a lot of it that tends to change.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> whats wrong with FWD? I use to crush AX comps with a FWD car, routinely got Fastest time of the day in 1990 Civic.


I think that this represents the recurring rub; no need say that anyone is wrong. What has been said many ways is that folks have come to some pretty good conclusions about their riding based upon their own equipment, old or new, and terrain.

No one said that FWD was bad. What was said was that within the RWD model, those who learned on modern systems would have a very hard time on the older stuff. I think that a fair statement and it has many parallels in this thread.

That also doesn't mean that folks who learned on older systems cannot take advantage of new ones. I have seen highly skilled riders just nail courses on crappy bikes. Good is good. Skill is skill.

However, bushwackerinPA, somehow you seem to grab onto the idea that you are being dissed.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I'm liking this thread more and more with each passing page. Anybody have any popcorn?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Stems haven't been too long, top tubes/reach have been too short.


This right here ^. I keep wondering when the road bike world is going to do the same.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> This right here ^. I keep wondering when the road bike world is going to do the same.


As usual you're 4 pages late to the party.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> As usual you're 4 pages late to the party.


Oh, you have no idea. That's been the story of my life. But, when I arrive you better look out!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> This right here ^. I keep wondering when the road bike world is going to do the same.


When steep climbs, flat turns, weight, and stiffness issues leave road biking.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Ok, how about this. Think about where your body is in relation to your bike on a climb, descent, and flat section. Now think about how changing the stem length would effect your body position in each situation. Want the ideal body position for where your body is most often positioned? Everything is a compromise. A short stem will take weight off the front wheel. This matters the most when climbing, less so on the flats, and helps when you want your weight back. This can be dealt with by exaggerating your body position, but that gets more difficult to do when you're tired. It also makes you tired, so...

P.s. I'd post pics, but I assume people can use their imaginations, here..


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> When steep climbs, flat turns, weight, and stiffness issues leave road biking.


In a lot of forms of pro road bike racing, they are having to add weight to make a bike legal. Lengthening a road bike frame and shortening the stem will take nothing away from climbing or stiffness, but it will make a road bike handle corners better.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> In a lot of forms of pro road bike racing, they are having to add weight to make a bike legal. Lengthening a road bike frame and shortening the stem will take nothing away from climbing or stiffness, but it will make a road bike handle corners better.


Of course longer tubes will decrease stiffness, and taking weight off the front wheel will decrease traction on corners and increase wandering on the climbs. Physics and whatnot. Seriously, how is this still a discussion?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> In a lot of forms of pro road bike racing, they are having to add weight to make a bike legal. Lengthening a road bike frame and shortening the stem will take nothing away from climbing or stiffness, but it will make a road bike handle corners better.


And this slipped right by the frame builders for the pro road race circuit?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Of course longer tubes will decrease stiffness, and taking weight off the front wheel will decrease traction on corners and increase wandering on the climbs. Physics and whatnot. Seriously, how is this still a discussion?


Stiffness can easily be added through carbon layup. It doesn't nessasarily take weight off the front. With some angle changes, longer frame and shorter stem you are able to, more easily, keep an equal weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, which is much more important. It won't hurt climbing for a road bike. Road bikes get great traction on ashfault.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Stiffness can easily be added through carbon layup. It doesn't nessasarily take weight off the front. With some angle changes, longer frame and shorter stem you are able to, more easily, keep an equal weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, which is much more important. It won't hurt climbing for a road bike. Road bikes get great traction on ashfault.


What site are we on?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> And this slipped right by the frame builders for the pro road race circuit?


Road bike people are pretty set in their ways. It didn't happen to MTBs for a long time. It'll take even longer for the road bike crowd. Just like wide rims and disc brakes. They will eventually adopt them, it will just take some time.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> What site are we on?
> 
> View attachment 1006026


Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you know I'm right!


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


>


What site are we on?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I think that this represents the recurring rub; no need say that anyone is wrong. What has been said many ways is that folks have come to some pretty good conclusions about their riding based upon their own equipment, old or new, and terrain.
> 
> No one said that FWD was bad. What was said was that within the RWD model, those who learned on modern systems would have a very hard time on the older stuff. I think that a fair statement and it has many parallels in this thread.
> 
> ...


nah I was just guessing I was one of the few people here who has AXed, road raced, rallied and done hill climbs in bunch of different cars.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

One of my teammates was having trouble keeping the front wheel of his road bike planted in a sprint for a while. I think a lot of what drives road bike design, for good or ill, is the last 5k of a road race. I think some gravel bikes ship with pretty short stems lately, though.

I found myself thinking about why it's taken so long to take another look at geometry during my ride today. Two years ago, I bought a shiny new XC FS 29er, after demoing one and being grabbed by how smooth it rode everywhere, and the locked-in, carvy feeling in curves. One of my better decisions. 

What I was thinking about today was that a lot of the geometry changes that have come through lately wouldn't have mattered all that much with the little 1.8" tires and non-functional suspension, or total lack of it, that mountain bikes brought into the '90s. All that meant a certain amount of picking one's way through the rough stuff we get to be a little more BRRAP about lately. And to be honest, a few of the things I like on my new bike when I'm going fast - a little slacker head angle, a little more front-center distance, a little more ground clearance - I find can be a bit of an impediment if I'm struggling just getting through stuff. My old hardtail doesn't have nearly as high a speed limit, but when I'm picking my way through things, it's a bit easier to manage.

Another thought is that a little longer top tube and shorter stem isn't new. Fisher was promoting it years ago. It's taken the rest of the industry some time to catch up, and it seems like they stuck with the old fork offset.

Anyway, I'm glad the industry's not so locked up that they don't keep messing with things. While going from the 90 mm stems and 600 mm bars of ten years ago to more current stuff doesn't strike me as huge, getting away from 130 mm stems and 450 mm bars is something I can get behind.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

I still think we'll see a resurgence of sorts on having short wheelbase, short travel bikes, but with modern bits making them very lightweight, ridiculously playful, and hilariously easy to use for all of those reasons - on trails where speed isn't that important I'm usually jealous of the riders out there on the compact 26" wheeled XC bikes that according to all the industry press releases should be archaic, but in practice those are the right tool for that job... on my favorite trails where I can achieve some truly unwise speeds, I need a bike as capable as mine in order to consider it; if I had the skills honed from decades of riding tricky trails despite being on poor equipment, I'm sure I'd feel differently, but knowing how much better a long, low, slack bike is at so many tasks, it's hard to comprehend why some riders buy what amounts to a flat bar road bike on knobbies when the best tool would be a forward geometry bike.

I have no illusions that a 6" fork, and a 2.4x29" tire out front forces me to be a more skilled rider; it doesn't. In fact, anything I ride within a 12mi radius a setup like that I can probably mindlessly monster truck it and just unweight the rear to finish running roughshod over it... that's not to say that the added capability is useless, and to be able to use that basically required having a short enough stem that when I do send it off some bigger things, I'm actually able to keep my center of mass aft of the front axle.
As far as the climbing piece, it's as simple as locating the rider center of mass, and measuring the weight distribution and any applicable polar moments through the contact points to determine how technical climbs can be managed. A long stem on a short frame is the best combination for going fast up boring climbs - it's more even over rocky, ledgy, camber-y, and loose climbs where the longer front center and shorter stem creates more effective cockpit space and allows for a slacker head tube angle. 

Even my fat, out of shape, athsmatic self on 2.4" tires and a really slack head tube (<67°) can make technical climbs that I see guys on dedicated XC whippets walking, so there is unquestionably some merit to the new school geometry even uphill - on the downhill side it's no contest. While I do agree with BerkeleyMike about how important the individual body of experience is, keep in mind that the tendency is still towards status quo, and that most of these things are more confidence than limit performance restricted so a new good idea is still prone to dismissal due to cognitive biases rather than an actual performance deficiency in a new concept.
To use the FWD/RWD Manual/Slushbox analogy, it still comes to how possible it is through a ton of other variables to weight the correct contact patches correctly - something a skilled operator can do regardless of the equipment, and a lot of people not grasping the fundamental concepts or unable to apply them will use as a reason to constantly blame their equipment. I'm neither a brilliant bike handler nor amazing car control talent, but I'm skilled enough at both to get within 9/10's of my equipment, which is enough to know that outside of extremely specialized instances it's better to develop the skill to work around a compromise that favors wider improved performance (i.e. use core muscles and the nose of the seat for climbing, instead of adopting a geometry and puts one's collar bones ahead of the bar ends) than overtune the hardware around deficiencies for some of users.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Fishers/Treks 90s new geometry did wonders to bring riders back into the sport. It made the trails more s accessible, more fun. It comes from a Gary who would go out and ride a piece of ground and then come back to his factory and tell his engineers to build a frame with characteristics he would describe. 

Gary has a very fluid mind and the skills to assess what is needed for a certain thing. He had no need to make things easier for himself but knew that making designs more amenable to the newer rider he made a better experience. He kept working the equation.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> I measured the wheelbase on my medium 98 Explosif, 1100mm and my medium Warden is 1162mm. 62mm difference, less than 3". The old Kona climbs and handles tight trails amazingly, the Warden climbs about as well unless it's chunky, then it's better. The Warden in the steep setting with a 66.5 HTA does quite well on very tight trails, but not quite as well as the Kona.


Not sure that a bike from the late 90's is a good comparison. 1100mm wheel base would be considered way long during the early 90's and I don't think there were too many bikes if any with that long of a wheel base back then. The bikes I am and I believe others are referring to designed with manuverabilty as top priority are bikes from this era, before frames were suspension corrected and really before suspension had taken hold. By the mid to late 90's companies were messing with geo to try and account for the new technology of suspension and that was taking priority in the geo design.

But if you look at classic bikes like ones from yeti, trek, fat chance, bontrager and the like from before suspension corrected geo they all had wheel bases from 41" to 42" regardless of frame size, Yeti didn't even change the top tube length between frame sizes because they wanted all their bikes to have the same nimbleness that a 41.5" wheel base provided.

There is going to be a huge noticeable difference in maneuverability in a bike with a 71 degree HA with a 41.5" wheel base and a bike like the warden with a 66.5 degree HA and a 45.5" wheel base. And if your a big guy like me the difference in wheel base is several inches more with the new geo. some bikes are up to 48" and 49" wheel base for their larger sizes. My sb66 is no where as nimble as my old rockhopper from the early 90's is. The rockhopper can "run circles" (as another said) around the sb66, but can't handle the type of terrain the sb66 can. Both are great fun for the type of trails they are built for.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

The NORBA geo of bikes in the '90s just had the shorter top tubes so you needed a longer stem to get stretched out...at least that's what I blame it on. I am 5'6" and had bikes with 135mm stems..hahahahaha.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

TiGeo said:


> The NORBA geo of bikes in the '90s just had the shorter top tubes so you needed a longer stem to get stretched out...at least that's what I blame it on. I am 5'6" and had bikes with 135mm stems..hahahahaha.


With that setup it sounds like your lips would be touching the front tire.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> With that setup it sounds like your lips would be touching the front tire.


Not the tire but they sure contacted the ground more often.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It is marketing conspiracy designed to sell an enormous backlog of long stems that we had made in China to help their economy get started. The needed to make something besides shipping containers.
> 
> I blame this on Nixon.


Wow. I thought I was the only one that knew about this.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Berkeley Mike & JACKL, you have outed yourselves, watch your backs. Nixon may be dead but there are many who still want this kept quiet.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> Not the tire but they sure contacted the ground more often.


Yup, if you don't know how to ride those old geo, short wheel base bikes just like you would be spinning out into ditches if you didn't know how to drive a rear wheel drive car with a big engine and no traction control. But if you have the skill, both these things can be crazy fun and fast.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> The rockhopper can "run circles" (as another said) around the sb66, but can't handle the type of terrain the sb66 can. Both are great fun for the type of trails they are built for.


This is the germ of the whole thread.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> Yup, if you don't know how to ride those old geo, short wheel base bikes just like you would be spinning out into ditches if you didn't know how to drive a rear wheel drive car with a big engine and no traction control. But if you have the skill, both these things can be crazy fun and fast.


there are trail where NORBA hardtail will never be fastest again on.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

So for curiosity sake, how many people aside from Travis Bickle have actually done any proper semi-scientific testing on this subject? How many of the long-stem-lovers have tried riding something with "modern geometry" (and a short stem) back to back on the same trail as their short wheelbase roadie-geo bike? 
I know that in theory a longer wheelbase will make a bike less manoeuvrable, but is a couple of inches really the end of the world compared to the stability and better weight balance the longer wheelbase/slacker HA/shorter stem gives when going down?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

David R said:


> I know that in theory a longer wheelbase will make a bike less manoeuvrable


Except, that is not true, with modern mountain bikes.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> there are trail where NORBA hardtail will never be fastest again on.


Your junior high English teacher just rolled over in her grave.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Funny, in none of this discussion of stem length, I don't remember anyone mentioning they had a professional bike fit to determine or verify if their position on the bike is correct.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Except, that is not true, with modern mountain bikes.


If you are just comparing wheelbases, then it is absolutely true. If you're referring to other geometry changes to make a bike with a long wheelbase more manueverable, then your making other compromises, such as weight distribution.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Need a chart that shows geo changes from old to new... I think my old bike had 42" wheelbase while my new one has a 44.5" wheelbase, but that's from 26 HT to 29er FS. Someone said they've grown by 8", and I find that hard to believe.










Compared to a med Yeti ARC 29er HT, with 1099mm wheelbase (43.3"). Not too much of a change, probably mostly attributed to the longer fork axle-to-crown length.

I also see I missed a circus of standards, with 1 1/4" steerers and 26.8mm seatposts back then.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> So for curiosity sake, how many people aside from Travis Bickle have actually done any proper semi-scientific testing on this subject? How many of the long-stem-lovers have tried riding something with "modern geometry" (and a short stem) back to back on the same trail as their short wheelbase roadie-geo bike?
> I know that in theory a longer wheelbase will make a bike less manoeuvrable, but is a couple of inches really the end of the world compared to the stability and better weight balance the longer wheelbase/slacker HA/shorter stem gives when going down?


I've ridden all kinds of bikes with all kinds of geometry. A couple of inches can make a huge difference on certain trails. It's not the end of the world, but it can change how much fun you're having. Finally, a short stem and long toptube does not mean better weight dustribution. In fact, it's quite the opposite anyplace where you aren't going downhill or bombing a straight line.

I don't like to do this, but I posted this a couple pages back and I want people to think about this. Think about where your body is in relation to your bike on a climb, descent, and flat section. Now think about how changing the stem length would effect your body position in each situation. Want the ideal body position for where your body is most often positioned? Everything is a compromise. A short stem will take weight off the front wheel. This matters the most when climbing, less so on the flats, and helps when you want your weight back. This can be dealt with by exaggerating your body position, but that gets more difficult to do when you're tired.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Need a chart that shows geo changes from old to new... I think my old bike had 42" wheelbase while my new one has a 44.5" wheelbase, but that's from 26 HT to 29er FS. Someone said they've grown by 8", and I find that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just about 8" diff in wheel base between the xl Mondraker with forward geo and xl yeti from the early 90's before suspension correct frames. For smaller riders this is not as big as an issue, but for big riders who ride large size bikes like me, there is a huge noticeable difference in manuverabilty between old geo and new geo. Also, older geo bikes did not differ that much in wheel base between sizes, maybe an inch or not at all, while bikes now can vary up to 4" or 5" in wheel base between sizes of the same model bike.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

tahoebeau said:


> Just about 8" diff in wheel base between the xl Mondraker with forward geo and xl yeti from the early 90's before suspension correct frames. *For smaller riders this is not as big as an issue, but for big riders who ride large size bikes like me, there is a huge noticeable difference in manuverabilty between old geo and new geo. *Also, older geo bikes did not differ that much in wheel base between sizes, maybe an inch or not at all, while bikes now can vary up to 4" or 5" in wheel base between sizes of the same model bike.


I've discovered that this is especially true - for median sized riders a lot of this stuff is just making incremental adjustments on angles and distance relationships; for me I had written off mountain biking as a waste of time after riding a ton of bikes that were way too small for me and too heavy to be any good at being maneuverable - only when my friend showed up with a newer Kona hardtail did I get hooked again, just a few seconds on an actually usable geometry and I realized I was probably going to be out some money, but it would be totally worth it.

My current bike has a 46.5" wheelbase, and I want to go longer by 2-3 inches if I'm at the same or longer travel, hopefully offsetting any added weight with lighter parts all around.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> Funny, in none of this discussion of stem length, I don't remember anyone mentioning they had a professional bike fit to determine or verify if their position on the bike is correct.


I did a pro fit on my road bike several years ago. I found it very useful.

I don't anticipate paying for a fit on my MTB any time soon. I feel like now that I know what I'm going for, I can do pretty well myself.

I don't think that there's any conflict between short stems and good fit, if that's where you were going. Not if they're coupled with a longer frame reach.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I can't believe how quickly this thread became six pages. Ok... Here's my history with stems. 
My Cannondale, which I rode for way too many years, had stems and bars that changed with the times, but all of the stems were considered long by today's standards. 
In 2008, I bought a 29er FS Stumpjumper. It came with an insanely long stem that creaked and drove me crazy because it had a slight rise adjustment via a tapered wedge. I replaced it with a Loaded Components stem that was 110mm long. I felt the need for a shorter stem when I replaced it, so I went from 135 or whatever it was to 110. It felt WAY better. 
Then I built my fat bike. I immediately went for a 100mm stem because I'm tall. I did't feel right on that bike so I started testing parts. I swapped the seatpost for a Thomson setback post and felt better. Once I shortened the stem to 80mm, The fatty feels perfect. I then shortened the stem on my Stumpjumper to 100mm and now all is right with the world on both bikes. 
I see setback posts and stems as tuning tools. My ten year old is on a Medium 907 frame and I think he has an 80 or 90mm stem. My wife (5'6") rides a 17" Salsa Spearfish and has no setback post and a 90mm stem. 
I actually shop sales for stems pretty regularly.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I did a pro fit on my road bike several years ago. I found it very useful.
> 
> I don't anticipate paying for a fit on my MTB any time soon. I feel like now that I know what I'm going for, I can do pretty well myself.
> 
> I don't think that there's any conflict between short stems and good fit, if that's where you were going. Not if they're coupled with a longer frame reach.


Agree but everyone's body dimensions are different. I have a long upper body, shorter legs. I need a longer stem on my bike. Isn't your back angle supposed to be about 45 degrees? Anyway, I had a Retul bike fit done on my mountain bike. I was mostly concerned about the fit of my road bike, which was done at the same time. I don't know what parameters Retul has in it for mountain bikes, or if it takes into account the type of bike and ride style.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

It should be noted that like handlebars under 700mm wide, stems over 50cm long are not "enduro" (TM) and therefore not modern.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

tehllama said:


> I've discovered that this is especially true - for median sized riders a lot of this stuff is just making incremental adjustments on angles and distance relationships; for me I had written off mountain biking as a waste of time after riding a ton of bikes that were way too small for me and too heavy to be any good at being maneuverable - only when my friend showed up with a newer Kona hardtail did I get hooked again, just a few seconds on an actually usable geometry and I realized I was probably going to be out some money, but it would be totally worth it.


I totally agree, and it's something that the manufacturers haven't really figured out- taller people need that space between the wheels and we don't benefit from a short wheelbase cuz the person on top still needs to cut the large wheelbase line. I built myself a frame with a >26" ETT and it's totally comfortable and doesn't hinder me in the slightest. A tall rider has it rough; there's 1/2 as many frame choices, and 1/2 of those were designed by munchkins who have no idea what a tall rider needs.

Regarding the 'pro fitter' discussion, i'm a former pro fitter, and a smart intermediate/advanced rider who is interested in MTB enough to participate on a message board is gonna fit themself better than i can. I can get anyone 80% perfect, but i can't know how you interact with the bike in the real world. This goes doubly true when suspension set up is left to the rider. I can do much better on road bikes, where there's less emphasis on handling and I can get most anyone in to an efficient, fast, comfortable fit after a 2nd consultation, which should be free. (i'm not saying this cuz i suck, i'm saying it cuz i'm candid and not in the industry) So... go get a pro-fit on your road bike, chat with your fitter, and don't be afraid to mark their settings and experiment a bit. Then take what you learned from the pro-fit and apply it to your MTB. Don't own a road bike? Go get one, they're fun.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Stem length has changed to match bar width. As bars have gotten wider stems lengths have gotten smaller. Longer top tubes are a factor too, but bar width more than anything has affected stem length.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

LMN said:


> Stem length has changed to match bar width. As bars have gotten wider stems lengths have gotten smaller. Longer top tubes are a factor too, but bar width more than anything has affected stem length.


What has effected stem length most, is riders want to have a bike that is stable in the corners or anytime the trail goes downhill. Mountain bikes are getting more like dirt bikes, with wider rims and shorter stems. I'd say a longer frame with a short stem and wide rims are by far the two best upgrades I've ever made. Now I have a mountain bike that rides as stable as my KTM. Now my rides are much more fun and my bike climbs just as good as any mountain bike I have owned.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> Agree but everyone's body dimensions are different. I have a long upper body, shorter legs. I need a longer stem on my bike. Isn't your back angle supposed to be about 45 degrees? Anyway, I had a Retul bike fit done on my mountain bike. I was mostly concerned about the fit of my road bike, which was done at the same time. I don't know what parameters Retul has in it for mountain bikes, or if it takes into account the type of bike and ride style.


I'm always suspicious when I see numbers thrown around that are that specific and at the same time just a relatively low-precision fraction of a circle. Why 45 degrees? Why not 44? Or 46? Why do the really high W/kg guys ride lower than that? Why do people getting back into it seem to need to sit higher to be comfortable? It's sort of like the thing with the 15 degree knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke - it's hard to even measure that accurately, I don't buy that it should be 15 and not 14 or 16, and people seem to self-select other angles and ride miles and miles without getting hurt.

What if what you really need is a larger bike frame and shorter stem? That would get you a more similar weight distribution over the wheels to a more average-proportioned rider. Maybe you'd need to slam your stem or get into inverted risers, but you could discover a whole new world of controllable front wheel floating.

Since getting your fit done, have you left it alone? Or did you play around and tweak it a bit?

Like I said, I found it useful to get a fit done. I was totally screwing things up and getting in my own way. If he used a branded system, I don't know about it. But if so many of us can "make a bike fit" at least well enough to be physically comfortable or get good handling, I think the motivating thing for having so many frame sizes is to be able to have both at the same time.

My attitude is that I'm not negotiable on having a bike fit my body; I'll select the size that handles well once it's there.

I also think there's a little bit of a "strike zone" where good fit for riding in the saddle and riding out of the saddle overlap, and some subjectivity based on how hard I tend to work when I'm on that bike. The fit on my track bike would be ridiculous for anything else, for example, but I have dropped, relaxed elbows when I'm actually racing it.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau:
The rockhopper can "run circles" (as another said) around the sb66, but can't handle the type of terrain the sb66 can. Both are great fun for the type of trails they are built for.



Berkeley Mike said:


> This is the germ of the whole thread.


Not exactly sure what a "germ of the whole thread" means, but ya, my sb66 has about a half foot longer wheel base than my old school rockhopper and does not maneuver like my rockhopper especially on tight trails.



BushwackerinPA said:


> there are trail where NORBA hardtail will never be fastest again on.


There are many trails near me I can't even ride my old style NORBA rigid on without inflicting serious harm to myself, let alone be faster. My sb66 is faster on about 90% of trails near me and just about everything but tight and twisty or flats with no chunk. But my NORBA geo rigid doesn't need to be the fastest for it to be fun.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Except, that is not true, with modern mountain bikes.


Which is exactly why I was asking who is basing their comments on experience and who is just freaking out about a potential departure from their trusty oldschool geometry.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I'm always suspicious when I see numbers thrown around that are that specific and at the same time just a relatively low-precision fraction of a circle. Why 45 degrees? Why not 44? Or 46? Why do the really high W/kg guys ride lower than that? Why do people getting back into it seem to need to sit higher to be comfortable? It's sort of like the thing with the 15 degree knee bend at the bottom of the pedal stroke - it's hard to even measure that accurately, I don't buy that it should be 15 and not 14 or 16, and people seem to self-select other angles and ride miles and miles without getting hurt.
> 
> What if what you really need is a larger bike frame and shorter stem? That would get you a more similar weight distribution over the wheels to a more average-proportioned rider. Maybe you'd need to slam your stem or get into inverted risers, but you could discover a whole new world of controllable front wheel floating.
> 
> ...


There is a tolerance bands or ranges for each of the measurements in the Retul system. I don't know if a 45 degree back angle is optimum or what. There was a flexibility test so that had a bearing on it. I was having neck and upper back issues on my road bike. The fitter shortened my stem a cm. That actually helped. He also recommended 170 cranks instead of 172.5. I liked that change as well. My saddle height and fore-aft were tweaked. That helped a little too. In all, my position was close. Minor adjustments were done. I have not deviated from them.

On my mountain bike, the only change was to move the saddle back further on the rails. I had to get a seatpost with more setback. After a while, I felt my weight was a bit too far back in this position because my front wheel was a bit harder to keep on the ground on a climb, so I slid it forward a cm and raised the saddle a little to keep the same saddle height.

There were other issues with a looping motion with my right knee. The changes that were made to correct this I found uncomfortable and not useful, so I didn't stick with them. I also got Specialized arch support foot beds for my road and mountain shoes. That helped. I recommend those. My mountain shoes were basically worn to the point where they weren't supporting my feet properly, so I got new shoes too.

I spent a lot of money on two fitting sessions, plus other stuff. Mostly was worth it. I'm still trying to find a more comfortable saddle, which the bike fit didn't address (road bike). Both fits were done on level ground in one hand position on the bars, with the bike hooked up to a trainer and power meter.

You know, with all this talk about shorter stems, wider bars, I've got to say, I'm pretty comfortable on my mountain bike. I think that's most important.


----------



## allen mueller (Mar 23, 2010)

David R said:


> So for curiosity sake, how many people aside from Travis Bickle have actually done any proper semi-scientific testing on this subject? How many of the long-stem-lovers have tried riding something with "modern geometry" (and a short stem) back to back on the same trail as their short wheelbase roadie-geo bike?
> I know that in theory a longer wheelbase will make a bike less manoeuvrable, but is a couple of inches really the end of the world compared to the stability and better weight balance the longer wheelbase/slacker HA/shorter stem gives when going down?


I have big time, to the point of having both two of the same frames in different sizes about a year ago (devinci dixon in med & large). I also have huge pile of stems from 40-80 mm and bars ranging form 720-780mm. My current bike is a large mojo hd. Like Travis, I know the #'s that I like and I think that's whats most important. When i rode my large dixon with a short stem with the bars in the same relative position to the seat compared to the med I found the I preferred the medium with a longer stem. I just prefer the quickness, ease popping over obstacles or into a different line of a slightly shorter FC and wheel base. On my mojo i'm still sorting our what stem I like best but i'm gravitating towards the 70mm.

Setup is such a personal preference and I think that's the reason threads like this go on so long since there's no one right answer.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)




----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> Which is exactly why I was asking who is basing their comments on experience and who is just freaking out about a potential departure from their trusty oldschool geometry.


Nobody is freaking out about a departure. It's been clearly stated many times, which have been conveniently ignored, that it all depends on trails and riding preferences. There is no one setup that is ideal for everybody on every trail. There are compromises when running a short stem with a long front end. If you were a mountain biker back in the 80's or '90's, you would understand how trails have changed, riding styles have changed, and bikes have changed to match the trends. It's not necessarily better. It's just different. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Short stems and a long toptube make riding modern trails easier. That doesn't mean that there aren't trails that benefit from a shorter front end and longer stem.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

tahoebeau said:


> Not exactly sure what a "germ of the whole thread" means


I think he meant that your comment was a gem, not a germ 



> my NORBA geo rigid doesn't need to be the fastest for it to be fun.


That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> Agree but everyone's body dimensions are different. I have a long upper body, shorter legs. I need a longer stem on my bike. Isn't your back angle supposed to be about 45 degrees? Anyway, I had a Retul bike fit done on my mountain bike. I was mostly concerned about the fit of my road bike, which was done at the same time. I don't know what parameters Retul has in it for mountain bikes, or if it takes into account the type of bike and ride style.


Your back angle is where you are comfortable, producing power, able to get your upper body down and apply weight to the front, able to get your body back for descents, all as needed.

Fit in the front is far more flexible that on a road bike as we move around a whole lot more for our dynamic handling. That said, stem length/height, and *bending your arms *mitigate a lot of this discussion.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau:
> The rockhopper can "run circles" (as another said) around the sb66, but can't handle the type of terrain the sb66 can. Both are great fun for the type of trails they are built for.
> 
> Not exactly sure what a "germ of the whole thread" means, but ya, my sb66 has about a half foot longer wheel base than my old school rockhopper and does not maneuver like my rockhopper especially on tight trails.
> ...


Germ? Sorry. Think wheat germ, not cold germs.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Nobody is freaking out about a departure. It's been clearly stated many times, which have been conveniently ignored, that it all depends on trails and riding preferences. There is no one setup that is ideal for everybody on every trail. There are compromises when running a short stem with a long front end. If you were a mountain biker back in the 80's or '90's, you would understand how trails have changed, riding styles have changed, and bikes have changed to match the trends. It's not necessarily better. It's just different. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Short stems and a long toptube make riding modern trails easier. That doesn't mean that there aren't trails that benefit from a shorter front end and longer stem.


I've been riding since 1993, and not everyone has a dedicated bike park on their doorstep so not everyone's trails have changed. I still ride some of the exact same trails I learned to ride on 22 years ago, and there's no way I in hell I'd go back to a bike with a long stem and step angles. Time will soon tell if I prefer my Warden in steep or slack mode though.

What ever floats your boat I guess...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> What ever floats your boat I guess...


It only took 6 pages to figure that out.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Why are stem threads so damn long?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I've ridden all kinds of bikes with all kinds of geometry. A couple of inches can make a huge difference on certain trails. It's not the end of the world, but it can change how much fun you're having. Finally, a short stem and long toptube does not mean better weight dustribution. In fact, it's quite the opposite anyplace where you aren't going downhill or bombing a straight line.
> 
> I don't like to do this, but I posted this a couple pages back and I want people to think about this. Think about where your body is in relation to your bike on a climb, descent, and flat section. Now think about how changing the stem length would effect your body position in each situation. Want the ideal body position for where your body is most often positioned? Everything is a compromise. *A short stem will take weight off the front wheel. This matters the most when climbing*, less so on the flats, and helps when you want your weight back. This can be dealt with by exaggerating your body position, but that gets more difficult to do when you're tired.


Why do you want to weight your front wheel when climbing? Think about where your body is in relation to your bike for a climb, particularly when it's steep and loose.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think having some weight on my front wheel helps me maintain a line. None at all, and I'd loop out.

Of course, I move forward over my bike to climb. But I don't find I like to scoot forward on my saddle, which a lot of people mention. I usually lever forward at the hip. So I like to have some room in my cockpit for that.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think having some weight on my front wheel helps me maintain a line. None at all, and I'd *loop out.*
> 
> Of course, I move forward over my bike to climb. But I don't find I like to scoot forward on my saddle, which a lot of people mention. I usually lever forward at the hip. So I like to have some room in my cockpit for that.


That's slang for something 

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bikes-parts-gear-slang-terms-778044.html


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think having some weight on my front wheel helps me maintain a line. None at all, and I'd loop out.
> 
> Of course, I move forward over my bike to climb. But I don't find I like to scoot forward on my saddle, which a lot of people mention. I usually lever forward at the hip. So I like to have some room in my cockpit for that.


I have to scoot forward on my 50mm stem equipped Norco Range whenever I climb anything with any kind of pitch, which totally sucks because I end up with the flat, hard pointy end of my Specialized seat jammed exactly where it's not supposed to be. Which was precisely the reason why I forked out some serious cash for my sit bone measured Phenom saddle in the first place. This season I have had to pull out the chamois shorts after years of riding with only a nice pair of light, cool, airy shorts. And with every climb I feel like I am risking damage to what I was dearly trying to protect. Not happy about any of that.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I always find myself scooting forward on the saddle to get up a steep section. It gets me further over the bottom bracket.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

That is why I have used this type of saddle for so long for general riding. we climb a lot here. You slide forward onto your "taint" to maintain pressure on the back wheel and move weight over the bike as it is tilted upwards.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Given the current stem evolution, I think I found a mountain bike from like, 1947.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Whenever MTB riders complain about road bikes, I wonder how many of them actually ride them. Like, put in 15,000 miles a year, have a pro fitting, are flexible, wear proper clothing, etc. 

Getting on a random Trek 1500 wearing cargo shorts, riding up and down your local hill once, and saying it sucks isn't exactly the kind of well thought out opinion I trust. Sorry, you simply don't have an opinion worth listening to. Ride a bike HARD for a year and get back to me. The dude with the custom Nicolai is a great example of this. No, road bikes (and their geometry) don't suck, YOU suck. They have fantastic handling when set up properly, and yes, that can include a 100mm+ stem.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

I blame bigger wheel size.

With the bigger wheels, toe/wheel overlap increased. To compensate for this the manufacturers lengthened top tubes. So to give people a similar bike position the shorter stems came into play.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

mopartodd said:


> I blame bigger wheel size.
> 
> With the bigger wheels, toe/wheel overlap increased. To compensate for this the manufacturers lengthened top tubes. So to give people a similar bike position the shorter stems came into play.


Mmm, that sounds quite plausible actually.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

No, no! The short stem is magic!!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Whenever MTB riders complain about road bikes, I wonder how many of them actually ride them. Like, put in 15,000 miles a year, have a pro fitting, are flexible, wear proper clothing, etc.
> 
> Getting on a random Trek 1500 wearing cargo shorts, riding up and down your local hill once, and saying it sucks isn't exactly the kind of well thought out opinion I trust. Sorry, you simply don't have an opinion worth listening to. Ride a bike HARD for a year and get back to me. The dude with the custom Nicolai is a great example of this. No, road bikes (and their geometry) don't suck, YOU suck. They have fantastic handling when set up properly, and yes, that can include a 100mm+ stem.


Road bikes and mountain bikes are apples and oranges. Road bike geometry works on the road and their are different types of road bikes just like their are different types of mtbs. A long stem on a road bike is unlikely to pitch you over ther bars and can help stabilize the quick steering. I have done a bit of road biking and have several friends who are quite enthusiastic about it. It is fun (not as fun as mtb?) and great for fitness. My cross bike currently has road tires, a 100mm stem I'm thinking of going 110.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Road since 1973. I never questioned road bike frames/stems and just rode. I'm guessing that short wheelbases were function of saving weight by using less material, first steel, Ti, then alu. With carbon that is no longer a need.

MTB is far and away more demanding of handling characteristics.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

evasive said:


> Why do you want to weight your front wheel when climbing? Think about where your body is in relation to your bike for a climb, particularly when it's steep and loose.


Because on steep, loose climbs your front wheel lifts off the ground and at that point, you've blown it and have to put a foot down because you can't maintain a line. Maintaining a line is critical.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> No, no! The short stem is magic!!


Mmm, that sounds quite plausible actually.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

It's actually more physics, less magic.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

MikeDee said:


> Because on steep, loose climbs your front wheel lifts off the ground and at that point, you've blown it and have to put a foot down because you can't maintain a line. Maintaining a line is critical.


Not if your weight is over the bottom bracket. That's why you scoot forward on the saddle. Not to weight the front wheel.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

net wurker said:


> It's actually more physics, less magic.


Mmm....that sounds quite plausible actually.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

evasive said:


> Not if your weight is over the bottom bracket. That's why you scoot forward on the saddle. Not to weight the front wheel.


I'm with evasive on this. Most of the force goes into the seat and pedals and that provides much of the steering force. I actually put little downward force on the bars; three fingers on the grips and the pinky up in the air for style is my demo for climbing. You use the hands to radically redirect the front wheel over/around objects that want to block the climb.

Stem and top tube have very little to do with that method.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Draw a picture of a bike on flat ground and then an arrow from your estimated center of gravity to the center of the earth. It hits somewhere near the midpoint between the two tire contact patches. 
Now draw a bike on a steep incline and draw an arrow from your center of gravity to the center of the earth. It hits near the rear wheel contact patch. Add a force from a rock on the front tire, a body weight shift backward, or an acceleration of the bike, and that force vector moves behind the rear contact patch and the front wheel lifts. 

We are not trying to debate whether weight is needed on steep climbs to keep the front end down, are we?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> We are not trying to debate whether weight is needed on steep climbs to keep the front end down, are we?


Oh yes we are! Magic, physics, voodoo............


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I'm with evasive on this. Most of the force goes into the seat and pedals and that provides much of the steering force. I actually put little downward force on the bars; three fingers on the grips and the pinky up in the air for style is my demo for climbing. You use the hands to radically redirect the front wheel over/around objects that want to block the climb.
> 
> Stem and top tube have very little to do with that method.


I don't agree. I'm talking about super steep climbs. When you speed is so slow, you need your front wheel on the ground to balance. Don't you notice that you're struggling with the bars to keep your balance and keep the line you want? If you go off balance, or your front tire slips sideways, your only choice is to grab the brake and blow out of the pedal on the side you're falling to. Otherwise you fall over and possibly slide back down the hill. Getting on the nose of the saddle, flatten your back, and pull backwards or downwards on the bars (not up) will help to keep the front wheel planted. I just went up a climb like that the other day. I was at the limits of control and physical ability, but I cleaned it. Others walked it.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I don't agree. I'm talking about super steep climbs. When you speed is so slow, you need your front wheel on the ground to balance. Don't you notice that you're struggling with the bars to keep your balance and keep the line you want? If you go off balance, or your front tire slips sideways, your only choice is to grab the brake and blow out of the pedal on the side you're falling to. Otherwise you fall over and possibly slide back down the hill. Getting on the nose of the saddle, flatten your back, and pull backwards or downwards on the bars (not up) will help to keep the front wheel planted. I just went up a climb like that the other day. I was at the limits of control and physical ability, but I cleaned it. Others walked it.


I love the low speed grinds and they have taught me so many low speed skills. I mean, jeez, you have nothing but time to think about this stuff and tinker. Around here all the riding starts with climbing 500-700 ft at 8-18% and measuring it all out after repetitions is revealing.

I recall watching one of my students on a tough pitch we were all doing with everyone watching. About half way up he stalled just bit, front going off to the left. On any other day he would have put a foot down. On this day he froze the motion and rocked the bike to the left with his hips under him tilting his head to the right, and cranked to succeed up the climb.

It was brilliant and classic. Everyone cheered. We talked after. It changed his climbing; the bars/front had little to do with directing the bike but they did indicate where it was headed.

It is all a matter of centering your weight over both wheels as opposed to pressing the front down. The rear wheel is the most important as the front can be quite light as long as it stays in line. It isn't going much to steer, though. If the front starts to veer, you are simply too far back on the bike an drifting off line with your hips.

Yeah, I know. It is weird.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

net wurker said:


> Given the current stem evolution, I think I found a mountain bike from like, 1947. https://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/g...-why-have-stems-been-too-damn-long-50smtb.jpg


"Holy stemmage Batman"

" I know Robin just pretend you don't see it" look the other way"


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> Draw a picture of a bike on flat ground and then an arrow from your estimated center of gravity to the center of the earth. It hits somewhere near the midpoint between the two tire contact patches.
> Now draw a bike on a steep incline and draw an arrow from your center of gravity to the center of the earth. It hits near the rear wheel contact patch. Add a force from a rock on the front tire, a body weight shift backward, or an acceleration of the bike, and that force vector moves behind the rear contact patch and the front wheel lifts.
> 
> We are not trying to debate whether weight is needed on steep climbs to keep the front end down, are we?


I didn't think so, but...

Are you suggesting that you don't reposition your center of gravity when you climb a steep hill? That's the implication of your post.

I regularly climb loose slopes that are over 30% grade. I'm not weighting the front wheel; I'm trying to ration my energy output while staying centered over the bottom bracket where it is at that point- in front of the saddle. If I weighted the front, I would immediately fall over the stem because the rear tire would spin and I'd be done.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Word, evasive.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

MikeDee said:


> I don't agree. I'm talking about super steep climbs. When you speed is so slow, you need your front wheel on the ground to balance. Don't you notice that you're struggling with the bars to keep your balance and keep the line you want? If you go off balance, or your front tire slips sideways, your only choice is to grab the brake and blow out of the pedal on the side you're falling to. Otherwise you fall over and possibly slide back down the hill. Getting on the nose of the saddle, flatten your back, and pull backwards or downwards on the bars (not up) will help to keep the front wheel planted. I just went up a climb like that the other day. I was at the limits of control and physical ability, but I cleaned it. Others walked it.


That makes sense, until you realize that a unicycle could make those same climbs (with an admittedly ridiculously fit rider) - having the front wheel down is an easy, good leverage tool to be able to control the yaw of the bike, but it's actually not necessary to get up the climb. If those steep climbs are in any way traction limited, you actually want to have just enough front contact patch action to keep the pedaling effort from wiggling you off course, and nothing more (because that's lost grip on the rear tire).

My riding mirrors BM's on my favorite trails, just with some slightly sillier (20-30% grades) climbs where I have a habit of immolating chains with my gran-tastic 22-36 lowest gear (at some point I'll have to quit throwing 'missing links' on there as band-aids and get a new chain). I do notice the bars/wheel flop around up front if I'm just pedaling static on the seat, but once it points upward and I readjust my weight to get maximum traction, I'm still able to control the front wheel even with a setup that is, in theory, totally junk for climbing (66.8° HTA, 46mm Offset Fork, 29" Wheel with 2.4" Tires -- I know I was able to climb the steep-but-boring better on my 71° XC Hardtail Setup, but I'm not making that 800ft climb just to get to the top with a 6" travel 29er, if you know what I mean... ).


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

There's a guy named John Olsen that wrote a book on technical mountain biking around 15 years ago or so. He came up with this technique called dynamic traction. You shift into a 1:1 gear on a steep climb, get out of the saddle in a jockey position, then pull up on the bars in when the crank is level with the ground (max torque). That lifts the front wheel up for an instant and all the torque and weight goes into the back tire, driving it into the ground. I've used that technique on occasion, but the consequence of the rear tire slipping is great, and it is very exhausting on the upper body.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Just about 8" diff in wheel base between the xl Mondraker with forward geo and xl yeti from the early 90's before suspension correct frames. For smaller riders this is not as big as an issue, but for big riders who ride large size bikes like me, there is a huge noticeable difference in manuverabilty between old geo and new geo. Also, older geo bikes did not differ that much in wheel base between sizes, maybe an inch or not at all, while bikes now can vary up to 4" or 5" in wheel base between sizes of the same model bike.


Keep your oranges separate from the apples. Wheelbase has barely changed between 90's and modern *29'er* HTs. Just that in the meantime, bikes have gotten faster and more capable, and are much more comfortable because they don't force you into a stretched out riding position.

If you actually LOOKED at GEO charts, you'd see that. A 2015 F-Si has the same top tube and chainstay lengths as a 1996 Yeti ARC. But since it has a non-silly HT angle and almost twice the travel, it's wheelbase is 1.5" longer.

BTW, the idea that you keep bringing up that 1.5" of wheelbase makes an actual difference in what you can or cannot do on a trail is downright laughable.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

I am not so sure about the long stem helping in steep climbs, but I do think the super low BB hieght/drop and low stack of older geo bikes (rigid) helps out a lot. My best climbing bike has a 11.5" BB height and a 40mm BB drop. This helps to keep my weight low and along with the low stack my front end down when I shift my weight to the back wheel. 

On my more modern geo FS bike, I climb with the rear shock in climb mode, unless really steep and I will take it out of climb mode to the open position so that the rear/BB sits down lower. I also have a dual position fork which helps with the stack. This makes a big difference in my ability to climb the steeper stuff on this bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richde said:


> Keep your oranges separate from the apples. Wheelbase has barely changed between 90's and modern *29'er* HTs. Just that in the meantime, bikes have gotten faster and more capable, and are much more comfortable because they don't force you into a stretched out riding position.
> 
> If you actually LOOKED at GEO charts, you'd see that. A 2015 F-Si has the same top tube and chainstay lengths as a 1996 Yeti ARC. But since it has a non-silly HT angle and almost twice the travel, it's wheelbase is 1.5" longer.
> 
> BTW, the idea that you keep bringing up that 1.5" of wheelbase makes an actual difference in what you can or cannot do on a trail is downright laughable.


Edit: Original post deleted. Sorry thought you were commenting on one of my posts.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> There's a guy named John Olsen that wrote a book on technical mountain biking around 15 years ago or so. He came up with this technique called dynamic traction. You shift into a 1:1 gear on a steep climb, get out of the saddle in a jockey position, then pull up on the bars in when the crank is level with the ground (max torque). That lifts the front wheel up for an instant and all the torque and weight goes into the back tire, driving it into the ground. I've used that technique on occasion, but the consequence of the rear tire slipping is great, and it is very exhausting on the upper body.


I consider this a pretty advanced technique. It balances the out of the saddle crouch over the cranks, a bit forward to drive force diagonally back into the rear wheel.

I am not aware of using the bar for anything but a balance brace, but I do read info on the line I am keeping with my hands as they are more active on the front end. While the front can get light and doesn't have the steering power of the seat, it can sure stop you dead if you go off line.

That balance point is tricky but can buy you a bit of new power, give a break for some muscle groups, and even bit of speed that is wanted over certain surfaces or technical moves.

I'll think about that pulling on the bars on my next ride.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Pulling on the bars is good, pulling the chain is better


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> There's a guy named John Olsen that wrote a book on technical mountain biking around 15 years ago or so. He came up with this technique called dynamic traction. You shift into a 1:1 gear on a steep climb, get out of the saddle in a jockey position, then pull up on the bars in when the crank is level with the ground (max torque). That lifts the front wheel up for an instant and all the torque and weight goes into the back tire, driving it into the ground. I've used that technique on occasion, but the consequence of the rear tire slipping is great, and it is very exhausting on the upper body.


I find myself doing this fairly frequently. I didn't know it had a name and I don't buy that it influences traction much.

Further up the thread, smilinsteve said something about the only thing that really matters being whether the force vector from the system CG is in front of or behind the rear wheel. I think there's a tiny bit more to it, but not much.

That leaves a lot of what we think about, including weighting the front wheel, as images, not necessarily real physical descriptions of what's happening. Physical disciplines are full of images. I don't really believe in chi either, but the image of reaching through my feet into the center of the earth with my chi is powerful and helpful.

I think what Olsen is talking about is finding a gear ratio high enough to stall and make it hard to accidentally slip the wheel and low enough to push without completely blowing up. Pulling on the bars means recruiting some upper body to create power, which can be a good way to get a little extra boost on something difficult. I don't think it creates extra traction, but in a lower gear I think it can be easy to create torque too abruptly and slip the rear wheel. So for me, gear selection on super-steep stuff is more about being able to control torque while I'm crouched out of the saddle and forward. And yeah, I'm trying to keep at least enough weight on my front wheel to have it behave predictably even if I know that's not necessarily what's going on. After all, if there's a little weight on my front wheel, my CG must be a bit forward of my rear hub to put it there.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I find myself doing this fairly frequently. I didn't know it had a name and I don't buy that it influences traction much.
> 
> Further up the thread, smilinsteve said something about the only thing that really matters being whether the force vector from the system CG is in front of or behind the rear wheel. I think there's a tiny bit more to it, but not much.
> 
> ...


This technique does affect traction quite a bit. A good example would be in deep(-ish) snow. As you transfer weight back, the front lightens up and the rear digs in and you move forward. If you are in too high of a gear, your other pedal will not come over quickly enough before your front tire buries and stalls you. There's a huge amount of upper body work involved. I don't know what on earth it has to do with stem length, though.

The long stem was always OK for more static positions. As I dared ride steeper descents, though, I found my arms were not long enough to make corrections. I often just aimed and fired, so to speak, because there was little chance I could steer, brake, _and_ weight/unweight the front at will. I would have to do either/or, not both. Having a slightly shorter cockpit has made a big difference in how I ride (along with the slightly taller front end of 29ers and longer-travel 26ers), but, ironically, no current trails are nearly as hard/steep/rutted as the old ones that I learned on.

-F


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yesterday I was in a local shop and one of the employees has his personal bike on the floor. He has gone from a SB5 to a Range and I noticed he has a 35mm stem. He said he always uses that length and we discussed it briefly. He is among the best climbers in the area and while riding with a friend of mine he cleaned a switch back that I find difficult to push my bike up. Doesn't seem possible, but the witness is 100% reliable.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Learning to climb with even pedal strokes (I use spds), driving your feet forward aiming at the line of ascent and driving balance through the seat, works to direct the bike. At points in the climb my balance is so strong that I can lift the front wheel and place it wherever I want with a very light touch. The bars end up being a place to rest my hands and support my upper body more than anything.

Further, this relaxes the upper body and all that tension is gone, reducing you overall workload, allowing your blood to work in you legs where it is most needed.

As for the standing crouch, think of the bars pulling on a fulcrum with the BB as the pivot driving force into the back wheel into the ground. Again, I am not aware that I do that.

Front wheel lifting is not really a problem unless you are pulling on the bars and pull yourself off-axis. That is why climbing out of the saddle and pulling on the bars is tricky. You can watch riders try to get purchase and power by wrestling the bars and they wander a lot. So on the other hand too much weight on a front wheel that is wagging causes traction way from the ascent or taking traction away from the rear can spell the end. 

Relaxing your top and smoothing out your drive with feet and seat calms everything down and maintains pace and line. When we used to do climbing practice I would ride by and say, "pinkies up!" It always got a laugh but there was always some point at which a rider's light bulb would go on and they would give you that look of "oh! I get it!"


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Does the short stem mean you have to do all the steep stuff out-of-saddle?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

andytiedye said:


> Does the short stem mean you have to do all the steep stuff out-of-saddle?


Not at all.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Unless you want to.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

The best riding position for climbing is the one that lets me get to the top of the hill without falling off the bike in any direction. Strangely, I seen to have found this mystical position without having to analyse the heck out of it! Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The analysis is done, after the fact, only to eliminate the stem/wide bars/long top tube _de jour_ from the discussion.

I've been teaching a bit over the last few years and deconstructing experience has been revealing. On the hill I never give it a thought; my body does a deal with gravity through the bike.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

theMeat said:


> Pulling on the bars is good, pulling the chain is better


More leg is always better.

But you know how it is when you are at your limits and searching for a bit more something from somewhere? My climbing is often an issue of constant deals, tricks, and prayers, and lies to myself to get up a hill.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> My climbing is often an issue of constant deals, tricks, and prayers, and lies to myself to get up a hill.


The worst is when I turn a corner thinking I'm at the top...just to find out there's more.

My GF is an angry grumpy climber. I don't say a word to her till we get to the top.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

evasive said:


> Not if your weight is over the bottom bracket. That's why you scoot forward on the saddle. Not to weight the front wheel.


If you scoot forward you are weighting the front wheel, even if in your mind your weight is going to the bottom bracket.



> Are you suggesting that you don't reposition your center of gravity when you climb a steep hill? That's the implication of your post.


I'm suggesting that the reason you re-position is because your weight distribution shifts rearward when you climb.



> I regularly climb loose slopes that are over 30% grade. I'm not weighting the front wheel; I'm trying to ration my energy output while staying centered over the bottom bracket where it is at that point- in front of the saddle. If I weighted the front, I would immediately fall over the stem because the rear tire would spin and I'd be done.


I don't think anyone suggested pushing down on the front or anything like that. You just need to have enough weight on the front to keep it from lifting or wandering or whatever feels best for handling, that's all. Moving forward weights the front. In fact, its the only way to weight the front.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

tehllama said:


> That makes sense, until you realize that a unicycle could make those same climbs (with an admittedly ridiculously fit rider) - having the front wheel down is an easy, good leverage tool to be able to control the yaw of the bike, but it's actually not necessary to get up the climb. If those steep climbs are in any way traction limited, you actually want to have just enough front contact patch action to keep the pedaling effort from wiggling you off course, and nothing more (because that's lost grip on the rear tire).


What you describe is true in an ideal sense, on a smooth road. A unicycle doesn't have a front wheel which hits rocks causing it to lift and rotate you backward. On really steep stuff you can have that minimal weight on the front end, but a rock or an acceleration burst can lift it. 
I think longer bikes with short chainstays stretch out your body so you can keep sufficient weight on the front as well as keep traction in the back. I've had old school bikes where it took more effort to shift body weight to keep the front down without moving too far forward to where the rear tire would slip.

A longer stem might help with weight distribution in some extreme climbing situations, but I don't think most people feel the need for it. I know I don't. But my stem is 75mm right now, which I think crosses the magic line, no?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr Pig said:


> The best riding position for climbing is the one that lets me get to the top of the hill without falling off the bike in any direction. Strangely, I seen to have found this mystical position without having to analyse the heck out of it! Your mileage may vary.


Isn't it just called good balance?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Isn't it just called good balance?


No it's called good body english.

Who rides every situation of a trail sitting on your ass in one position?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> My GF is an angry grumpy climber. I don't say a word to her till we get to the top.


That actually falls into the Advanced Husband Behavior category.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> No it's called good body english.


In order to achieve proper front to rear balance while climbing.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> If you scoot forward you are weighting the front wheel, even if in your mind your weight is going to the bottom bracket.
> 
> I'm suggesting that the reason you re-position is because your weight distribution shifts rearward when you climb.
> 
> I don't think anyone suggested pushing down on the front or anything like that. You just need to have enough weight on the front to keep it from lifting or wandering or whatever feels best for handling, that's all. Moving forward weights the front. In fact, its the only way to weight the front.


So despite all the talk of drawing vectors through the bottom bracket (in various orientations), you're sticking with a need to put weight on the front wheel?

No, nobody suggested pushing down on the bar. But multiple posters have insisted that you need to weight the front of the bike while climbing for any number of reasons: not looping out, keeping the bars from wandering, etc. I argue that all of that is missing the point. Ironically, they're the same people who lecture about drawing vectors through an inclined bike. Obviously, keeping your weight centered over the bottom bracket shifts it forward from the rear when the inclination increases and increases the portion of your weight that is on the front wheel compared to what it would be if you sat in the same position as on a level surface. The point is: weighting the front is not the goal; it's a consequence. The goal is to keep your weight centered between the wheels.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I've been doing this for a long time: On steep climbs, sometimes I'll grip bars from the bottom, instead of putting my hands on top. I'll keep my elbows tucked in and it will pull the front of the bike down, without actually moving my body forward on the bike. It's starting to catch on with the XC crowd. It's called the Shawn grip and it works really well. Try it next time.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I've been doing this for a long time: On steep climbs, sometimes I'll grip bars from the bottom, instead of putting my hands on top. I'll keep my elbows tucked in and it will pull the front of the bike down, without actually moving my body forward on the bike. It's starting to catch on with the XC crowd. It's called the Shawn grip and it works really well. Try it next time.


Get a grip..


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> So despite all the talk of drawing vectors through the bottom bracket (in various orientations), you're sticking with a need to put weight on the front wheel?
> 
> No, nobody suggested pushing down on the bar. But multiple posters have insisted that you need to weight the front of the bike while climbing for any number of reasons: not looping out, keeping the bars from wandering, etc. I argue that all of that is missing the point. Ironically, they're the same people who lecture about drawing vectors through an inclined bike. Obviously, keeping your weight centered over the bottom bracket shifts it forward from the rear when the inclination increases and increases the portion of your weight that is on the front wheel compared to what it would be if you sat in the same position as on a level surface. The point is: weighting the front is not the goal; it's a consequence. The goal is to keep your weight centered between the wheels.


Putting weight on the front of the bike when climbing centers the weight properly across both wheels, which are the contact points with the ground. If you want to think about the ideal balance point in relation to the bottom bracket, that's great. The easiest way to accomplish that is to get the weight over the front wheel, which is made easier with a longer stem. That's what this thread is about, right? I think you're missing the point.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Putting weight on the front of the bike when climbing centers the weight properly across both wheels, which are the contact points with the ground. If you want to think about the ideal balance point in relation to the bottom bracket, that's great. The easiest way to accomplish that is to get the weight over the front wheel, which is made easier with a longer stem. That's what this thread is about, right? I think you're missing the point.


The easiest way to put weight over the bottom bracket is to (wait for it) put weight over the bottom bracket.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Get a grip..


I did, and it works wonders.



mountainbiker24 said:


> Putting weight on the front of the bike when climbing centers the weight properly across both wheels, which are the contact points with the ground. If you want to think about the ideal balance point in relation to the bottom bracket, that's great. The easiest way to accomplish that is to get the weight over the front wheel, which is made easier with a longer stem. That's what this thread is about, right? I think you're missing the point.


It's much easier with a longer frame and short stem. The goal while climbing is to achieve balance between the front and rear wheel, which is constantly changing.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> The easiest way to put weight over the bottom bracket is to (wait for it) put weight over the bottom bracket.


So how would you go about doing that on a steep climb? Move your weight forward, right?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It's much easier with a longer frame and short stem.


I disagree. You have to put more effort into moving your weight forward. Moving your front tire away from the center of gravity will move the center of gravity towards the rear. You have to exaggerate your body position more than you would with a shorter toptube and longer stem.  This is even more obvious when cornering on flat ground. You better weight the front tire if you're running a short stem on a flat, loose turn, or that front tire will wash out before the rear.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So how would you go about doing that on a steep climb? Move your weight forward, right?


Have you read anything I've posted?

Yes, I scoot forward and ride the nose of the saddle. But I keep my body upright and balanced, and don't lean forward on the bars. I want to keep my rear wheel biting. When pedaling a 24x36 on a loose 30% slope, I can't recover from a spin-out, so I need to be balanced and deliberate.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> Have you read anything I've posted?
> 
> Yes, I scoot forward and ride the nose of the saddle. But I keep my body upright and balanced, and don't lean forward on the bars. I want to keep my rear wheel biting. When pedaling a 24x36 on a loose 30% slope, I can't recover from a spin-out, so I need to be balanced and deliberate.


Unfortunately, I have read a bunch of the nonsense posted here. You shift your weight forward on the seat, which is moving your weight further over the front wheel. Upright or not, the result is the same as using a longer stem. The difference is the longer stem would make it easier to maintain the balance you're talking about. A 30% slope? Really?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I disagree. You have to put more effort into moving your weight forward. Moving your front tire away from the center of gravity will move the center of gravity towards the rear. You have to exaggerate your body position more than you would with a shorter toptube and longer stem. This is even more obvious when cornering on flat ground. You better weight the front tire if you're running a short stem on a flat, loose turn, or that front tire will wash out before the rear.


Oh no, with a longer frame your weight is already balanced better between the front and rear wheel. It takes less exaggerated weight shifts to keep yourself balanced. Same with cornering. Take a look at guys that are really good at cornering. They are steering with their hips and rear tire more than the front tire.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Unfortunately, I have read a bunch of the nonsense posted here. You shift your weight forward on the seat, which is moving your weight further over the front wheel. Upright or not, the result is the same as using a longer stem. The difference is the longer stem would make it easier to maintain the balance you're talking about. A 30% slope? Really?


[Sigh]

If I weren't in bed with a tablet, I'd draw you a picture.

A bicycle is driven by the rear wheel. That's where the chain goes. When climbing a steep slope, you need to keep your weight on that wheel, or you'll spin out. Ever had that happen? It happens when your weight gets too far forward and the rear wheel is unweighted. If your weight gets too far back, your front wheel lifts off the ground. I've seen a really good rider ride a wheelie up a slope, but I can't do it.

Imagine climbing on a unicycle: where will your body be then? As upright as possible, and over the bottom bracket. Why do I need to weight the front wheel? To keep it from wandering? If I can ride down the road with no hands at 25 mph, front end wandering isn't a bike issue. It happens when I'm gassed and sawing at the bars.

A longer stem absolutely is not going to help me maintain that balance, because it will stretch my body out when I want it to be upright.

Yes, a 30% slope, and greater in spots. The hill climb I'm referring to averages 13% because of several flat stretches. If you don't think that's a realistic climb, then maybe you should reconsider some of this discussion.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Lol. Skilled riders corner with their weight low over the bars on flat ground. This is called the "attack" position. It doesn't matter if you're steering or steering with your hips. Your weight is still over the front wheel. Centered, sort of. That balance point depends on things like headtube angle, bar height, stem length....

Evasive, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you've ever ridden a mountain bike.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

richde said:


> Keep your oranges separate from the apples. Wheelbase has barely changed between 90's and modern *29'er* HTs. Just that in the meantime, bikes have gotten faster and more capable, and are much more comfortable because they don't force you into a stretched out riding position.
> 
> If you actually LOOKED at GEO charts, you'd see that. A 2015 F-Si has the same top tube and chainstay lengths as a 1996 Yeti ARC. But since it has a non-silly HT angle and almost twice the travel, it's wheelbase is 1.5" longer.
> 
> BTW, the idea that you keep bringing up that 1.5" of wheelbase makes an actual difference in what you can or cannot do on a trail is downright laughable.


I am a big guy so I ride XL or XXL bikes and I don't ride crappy noodle forks from the 90's so my old bikes are all rigid and that is what I am looking at. I also have been comparing my sb66 to my rigid rockhopper which has a much bigger difference in wheel base than 1.5". It's more like 5" to 6" difference. That's noticeable. That FS-1 in XL has a 45.2" wheel base which would be over 3 1/2" difference in wheel base compared to an early 90's yeti. Not as much as the diff as my sb66 vs my rockhopper, but probably more noticeable than the diff in Ht angle from that fs-I vs a 90's mtb HT angle.

And as far as HT angles being "silly" back in the 90's, lots of bikes today still run a 71 degree HT angle and when you sit on that FS-1 (which has a 69.5 degree HT) and the fork sags 20 to 30% it should have just about the same HT angle as my old rigid rockhopper, so not sure why you think it's a "silly" angle.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Dam Skippy!! Just been ooggling at some bike porn o_0

Are Specialized taking the p1$$ putting a 75mm stem on there 29er Expert Enduro Carbon!?

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lol. Skilled riders corner with their weight low over the bars on flat ground. This is called the "attack" position. It doesn't matter if you're steering or steering with your hips. Your weight is still over the front wheel. Centered, sort of. That balance point depends on things like headtube angle, bar height, stem length....
> 
> Evasive, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you've ever ridden a mountain bike.


if your weight is over your front wheel your rear tire is spinning out.

IN reality your weight while climbing is dynamically just a head of the rear wheel. Heck sometime for really tricky sections I weight the rear wheel entirely and let the front end float over the rough stuff. The thing about dynamic balance like mountain biking is its not position you are constantly moving to get your balance where is going to need to be .


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lol. Skilled riders corner with their weight low over the bars on flat ground. This is called the "attack" position. It doesn't matter if you're steering or steering with your hips. Your weight is still over the front wheel. Centered, sort of. That balance point depends on things like headtube angle, bar height, stem length....
> 
> Evasive, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you've ever ridden a mountain bike.


Apparently you have completely missed the fact that I'm discussing climbing. Despite the fact that I mention that explicitly in all these posts.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

evasive said:


> So despite all the talk of drawing vectors through the bottom bracket (in various orientations), you're sticking with a need to put weight on the front wheel?
> 
> No, nobody suggested pushing down on the bar. But multiple posters have insisted that you need to weight the front of the bike while climbing for any number of reasons: not looping out, keeping the bars from wandering, etc. I argue that all of that is missing the point. Ironically, they're the same people who lecture about drawing vectors through an inclined bike. Obviously, keeping your weight centered over the bottom bracket shifts it forward from the rear when the inclination increases and increases the portion of your weight that is on the front wheel compared to what it would be if you sat in the same position as on a level surface. The point is: weighting the front is not the goal; it's a consequence. The goal is to keep your weight centered between the wheels.


So you want to keep nit picking the obvious and continue exploring the trivial? Ok I'll play! No one is missing the point, except you. 
You want to focus on rear traction. Fine. You want to ignore the reality that if you aren't looping out, its because you DO have weight on the front. You need both whether you want to admit it or not. 
You call one a goal and one a consequence. Ha.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

So how is anyone able to climb on a muni without a front wheel to weight?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lol. Skilled riders corner with their weight low over the bars on flat ground. This is called the "attack" position. It doesn't matter if you're steering or steering with your hips. Your weight is still over the front wheel. Centered, sort of. That balance point depends on things like headtube angle, bar height, stem length....
> 
> Evasive, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you've ever ridden a mountain bike.


Which, with a long stem, puts too much weight on the front tire. That's why the short stem trend started with gravity racers who push the limits of corner speed and slowly spread to other disciplines as people noticed the advantages.

Want to move your CG forward, lean forward a little into the position that a long stem would lock you in.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

This is gettin a little to scientific. A 100mm stem is the mtb equivalent of Donald Trump's hair, while a 35mm is like Tom Selleck's mustache.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Travis Bickle said:


> This is gettin a little to scientific. A 100mm stem is the mtb equivalent of Donald Trump's hair, while a 35mm is like Tom Selleck's mustache.


who wants a mustache ride!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

evasive said:


> So how is anyone able to climb on a muni without a front wheel to weight?


Dude, get off the ****ing unicycle ****. It's a completely different animal and has no comparative value here.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Oh is that what muni means?

You don't need to keep the front down on a unicycle because there is no front to keep down.

I would also like to point out that if grandma had a pecker, she'd be grandpa.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Yeah, if you read up, he's been spewing unicycle bull ****. Next it'll be tricycle ****!

Haha, you make a funny!


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I wonder if he rides clipless on his uni? o_0

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

It's funny how the length of ones stem effects others in such a dramatic way.

Page 10 now, awesome! :thumbsup:


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I hear some ladies like 'em long... black seems to be popular as well.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

l'oiseau said:


> I hear some ladies like 'em long... black seems to be popular as well.


I meet one of those criteria =)

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

The fact remains: aside from dynamic movements made for specific purposes (e.g. focussing traction or loading suspension), the majority of weight shifts made on a bicycle are for the purpose of staying balanced over the bottom bracket. Because it's the Internet, some people are tying themselves in knots to disagree with that.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

I wouldn't have guessed that implying bikes built around a shorter stem (stem length is a derivative fit measurement once a bike is properly sized, remember) can climb as well as their small-frame long-stem counterparts would rustle the jimmies of the boat-tiller orthodoxy quite this much. 

Being situated over the front wheel is great for climbing, especially with smaller stack values on a bike - as slopes ramp up it means more of the seat is usable, and for really long climbs I can't argue with the merit of this being preferable on race bikes where seconds count, and this also comes with some indirect aero benefits - not coincidentally, this is how road bikes are designed too. For some technical/ledgy climbing, this also widens the envelope for being able to maintain traction while grunting up stuff, but for 90% of riders being able to do this is fitness/skill limited far more than equipment limited, so it's absolutely worth questioning how ultimately helpful sticking with this geometry arrangement is for anybody but XC racers. 

All told, increasing the front center length (longer top/down tubes, slacker head angles) don't come with nearly the downsides professed by riders and journalists that prefer short bikes claim; learning better climbing technique and applying core muscles, while worrying less about perceived steering ills when climbing on the back of the saddle opens up the possibility of bikes that are much more stable downhill, handle bumps better, and with shorter stems and long bars have all the requisite steering precision for going fast everywhere.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lol. Skilled riders corner with their weight low over the bars on flat ground. This is called the "attack" position. It doesn't matter if you're steering or steering with your hips. Your weight is still over the front wheel. Centered, sort of. That balance point depends on things like headtube angle, bar height, stem length....
> 
> Evasive, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you've ever ridden a mountain bike.


To clarify, the position is also referred to as the Athletic or Ready Position and understood in all sports. It bespeaks control of the center of gravity to maintain or change position of the body.

I disagree that the weight is "over the front wheel" on a climb. As I have described in my posts the wheel can be very light and can have minimal downward pressure from the hands. Often the front wheel only _indicates_ the direction of the bike but does little to _control_ it, vs. the seat and feet, until it crosses the line of ascent and halts momentum.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

In every single one of those photos, there weight is on the front of their feet. Much like when a rider gets in attack mode, the weight is biased towards the front. If you don't weight the front tire around a flat turn on a bike designed with a rearward weight bias, you will wash out the front tire before the rear. Yes, a short stem creates a rearward bias. It sounds like you're saying you want to be balanced over the bottom bracket, but that is often not the case. You are always moving around, pitting weight over one wheel for traction or taking weight off to soften an impact. Same with cornering, climbing, and descending. If you're balancing your weight over the bottom bracket, you have weight bias towards the back. Again, you don't have to put weight beyond the headtube to weight the front end, like you say, but it's an easy way to do it.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

evasive said:


> The fact remains: aside from dynamic movements made for specific purposes (e.g. focussing traction or loading suspension), the majority of weight shifts made on a bicycle are for the purpose of staying balanced over the bottom bracket. Because it's the Internet, some people are tying themselves in knots to disagree with that.


Bottom bracket is irrelevant. The issue is front-end rear weight distribution. If you were to draw a free body diagram, you would use the weight of the rider/bike combination acting through the CG, and the forces at the contact points of the tires with the ground.

If you think you are right, how can you account for a recumbent bike, with the bottom bracket out in front of it, on a climb?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

MikeDee said:


> If you think you are right, how can you account for a recumbent bike, with the bottom bracket out in front of it, on a climb?


Recumbents suck on any climb, and would be 100% useless on a technical dirt one.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Regardless, what MikeDee says is 100% true in that post.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Regardless, what MikeDee says is 100% true in that post.


In theory? I'm not sure, but I do know that recumbents with their bb out front makes it impossible to correctly distribute weight in order to clear technical climbs, therefore in practice bb placement is very relevant.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> In theory? I'm not sure, but I do know that recumbents with their bb out front makes it impossible to correctly distribute weight in order to clear technical climbs, therefore in practice bb placement is very relevant.


I did say regardless. That kinda meant concentrate on the rest of the post.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Okey-dokey.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Strokey!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> In every single one of those photos, there weight is on the front of their feet. Much like when a rider gets in attack mode, the weight is biased towards the front. If you don't weight the front tire around a flat turn on a bike designed with a rearward weight bias, you will wash out the front tire before the rear. Yes, a short stem creates a rearward bias. It sounds like you're saying you want to be balanced over the bottom bracket, but that is often not the case. You are always moving around, pitting weight over one wheel for traction or taking weight off to soften an impact. Same with cornering, climbing, and descending. If you're balancing your weight over the bottom bracket, you have weight bias towards the back. Again, you don't have to put weight beyond the headtube to weight the front end, like you say, but it's an easy way to do it.


I disagree. Weight is on the balls of the feet and the athlete is ready to move in _any_ direction. That is the essence of the stance.

Also, the image of the cyclist clearly shows, on a flat/level surface, weight driven through the bb, outside foot down to drive the ground-side surface of the tire downward. It is not a front bias at all. Look at the line made by the contact patch and the outside foot. I love the finesse on the bars. Great shot.

I do agree that one is always moving around, depending upon what you are doing. Theirin lies the value of the athletic position to move where the force is needed.

I'm talking about major forces through the BB and the seat _when climbing_, especially the steeps. Perching on the nose and driving through the bb sure gives traction. We used to play games withe front, doing mini-wheelies of an inch or so, and pivoting the front to a new position. It revealed what steering was and what made it happen.

In that context, back to our discussion, stem, top tube, bar width don't even enter into it as I do not lay out to establish balance and traction. I am very much with evasive on this.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

MikeDee said:


> Bottom bracket is irrelevant. The issue is front-end rear weight distribution. If you were to draw a free body diagram, you would use the weight of the rider/bike combination acting through the CG, and the forces at the contact points of the tires with the ground.


Yep.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Perching on the nose and driving through the bb sure gives traction.


Driving through the bottom bracket sounds like a good visualization technique, but it doesn't mean anything, except in the obvious sense: you drive the bike by pedaling, and the pedals rotate around the bottom bracket.

All your weight is transferred to the front contact patch or the rear contact patch. Period. Moving forward never increases traction. The max traction would come with 100% of weight on the rear tire. Moving forward distributes weight to the front.

So if you are with Evasive on this, I'll ask you both, since moving weight forward never increases traction, then why do you do it?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Moving forward on the seat while climbing levers force through the frame. Driving force around the bb and kicking feet over the top in the direction of the climb, interacting with the seat, stabilizes the frame and its direction. 

Keeping the front wheel down doesn't mean driving it into the dirt but, instead, like tips up in snow, keeps perpendicular forces from stopping you and driving you off line.

You only need as much force on the front wheel to keep from flying off line or going over backwards. Moving forward on the seat need only give enough force to avoid that, not plant it in the dirt. think in terms of riding with no hands.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I bought a wide riser bar from a guy at work about a year and a half ago, not long after buying a new bike that came with one. The one I bought from my coworker went on my old bike, which I'd been riding with a 590 mm bar and 90 mm +6 degree stem. It's got a lot more sweep, so I've ended up sticking with the 90 mm stem and I feel like I have a little less reach, net. I also flipped it to -6, which looks a bit funny with the riser, and it feels like I have a little less drop, net.

It's not my ideal riding position. It's a 'B' bike now, so I don't want to spend a ton of time and money messing with it, and I've just left it alone.

The place I ride it is fairly steep. (Japanese Gulch, if you know WA riding.) There are a couple of totally ridiculous short grades, the kind of thing it's pretty easy to loop out on if I just try to ride straight up them and don't adjust my position.

I think one of the things that makes it a little harder to talk about riding position and mountain biking, and gives me some sympathy for the people who are super anti- about bike fit, is that it is really dynamic and we do move around a ton. Which leaves the question of why set up our bikes, or what is it that we're going for?

On the old bike, I usually just do rides of about an hour. I don't get tired during those, the climbs are not sustained, and so when I need to move forward over the bike, it's really not a big deal to adjust my position even if the handlebar position's not super conducive to it.

On the new bike, I'm willing to put some more effort and some more money into getting the position "just so." Which is still kind of a work in progress, but I definitely use a bit more drop. When I'm tired, it's easier to keep staying in the right place to stay on track during a climb. I don't really care if people want to express that as putting weight on the front wheel or putting weight forward enough of the rear wheel or putting weight over the bottom bracket because I don't see that any one of those makes the other ones not true. People should go with whatever gives them the best feel for being able to stay on a good line.

My bottom line is that people should set up their bikes so that when they're doing the kind of riding they like, their bikes don't hurt them and they have the right balance of handling characteristics. If I sometimes shuttled, did most of my climbing on access roads, and was primarily there for the descent, I could totally see changing my setup so that descending was a little less effort. If I wanted not to ride "that annoying technical stuff" and just rode around on fire roads, I'd probably change my position so I didn't have to bend my elbows as much when I put my head down and really focused on kicking out watts. I'm looking for the balance that leaves me feeling best at the end of a long ride and doesn't make me feel like I'm fighting my bike during my typical rides.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Setting up for the overall ride in your own conditions is key.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> So if you are with Evasive on this, I'll ask you both, since moving weight forward never increases traction, then why do you do it?


I've never made that claim, so I won't defend that position.

To recap: my first post in this thread was in response to a post that a benefit of a longer stem is that it helps put more weight on the front wheel for climbing. I asked why you'd want to, mostly as a rhetorical question. All of my engagement in this thread has been with that specific topic in mind: weighting the front wheel while climbing. Since this is a thread about stems, the clear implication of that is that you should weight the bars.

I climbed 2,600 feet of backcountry singletrack yesterday: old-school, eroded, rocks, roots, sand, and decomposed granite(oid). The entire time, my grip on the bars was very light and loose, and maintaining balance over the rear tire's contact patch was key. Front wheel is more or less irrelevant in those situations. I never weighted the bars, although I occasionally pulled back on them to increase the power of a pedal stroke. (On the descent I was certainly driving the front wheel through turns; I have a modern geometry bike with a longish front center, and with a bike like that you don't stay off the ground without driving the front wheel.)

I concede there is one reason you'd want to lean on the bars when climbing: if you need to compensate for not moving around the cockpit at all. On this morning's ride I found myself with an rider who hunched his chest down to the stem to make a climb. He didn't move his butt at all and kept it on the back of his saddle, which meant his center of mass was precariously close to being behind his rear hub.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

If you are racing or want to conserve energy by not being forced to use excessive bidy positioning, a longer stem will keep weight on the front wheel for climbing and cornering.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> If you are racing or want to conserve energy by not being forced to use excessive bidy positioning, a longer stem will keep weight on the front wheel for climbing and cornering.


A long stem puts too much weight on the front, that's why gravity racers have been using short stems for so long.

As far as climbing with a short stem goes, lean forward and get the same result without compromising other aspects of riding.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The point some of the other XC types and I have been making is that choosing a stem length isn't so much about whether or not we _can_ keep enough weight forward enough to climb well, but about how hard it is. It feels awkward to try to stay forward on a bike with too short a reach for me. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I was getting to the top via shuttle. I don't think that makes either side wrong, just emphasizing something different.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> A long stem puts too much weight on the front, that's why gravity racers have been using short stems for so long.
> 
> Yeah, downhill. Not cross-country! Come on, man.
> 
> As far as climbing with a short stem goes, lean forward and get the same result without compromising other aspects of riding.


Read what I wrote! It takes energy to put your weight over the front wheel if you have a short stem. A cross-country racer or endurance rider that wants to conserve energy might choose to run a longer stem to put themselves in a natural position for climbing and flats. You know, those times when you aren't going downhill!


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Read what I wrote! It takes energy to put your weight over the front wheel if you have a short stem. A cross-country racer or endurance rider that wants to conserve energy might choose to run a longer stem to put themselves in a natural position for climbing and flats. You know, those times when you aren't going downhill!


Weighting the front is required even less of the time and is NOT necessary on flat sections.

Unless you're suggesting that people are relaxing their core while placing a huge amount of weight on the hands while using a long stem (hello hand pain!), the same result occurs regardless of stem length by doing the same thing, leaning forward. The difference is that you aren't locked into a position that is bad for everything that is not straight up pedaling.

Seriously, look...actually look, at the way riders in other disciplines position their bodies and their weight and how they maneuver the bike underneath them. The front tire requires far less weighting than people realize.

Ultra endurance guys are using aero bars, ffs. That's not for handing, that's so they can lie forward while spending 12 hours in the saddle. If you can't support your upper body for 3 hours, that's a problem that a long stem won't help because the lack of support is going to kill your back, regardless of stem length. HTFU.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You've never been in a cross-country or endurance race, have you? Have you ever ridden a stem over 60mm? Your body position really doesn't change, much. Same reach to the grips, same posture, same pressure on the hands if you want. A lot of cross-country racers put more weight on their hands to get in a more stretched out position, but you can maintain your reach and position with a longer stem. It helps cornering on flat ground and makes climbing easier. If you really can't grasp that concept, either try it before speaking or stfu.


----------



## madsweeney (Sep 18, 2007)

One aspect ive seen to have not been mentioned in this discussion is that long stems were commonly used so riders could fit smaller frames. To shave a little weight and stiffen up the steel frames, road racers and early mtb riders would commonly ride smaller frames. 
Also, depending on the era, the mtb bikes im familiar with from the 80s had pretty slack geometry and lots of fork rake, the long stems helped "fix" the cruiser geometry.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

madsweeney said:


> One aspect ive seen to have not been mentioned in this discussion is that long stems were commonly used so riders could fit smaller frames. To shave a little weight and stiffen up the steel frames, road racers and early mtb riders would commonly ride smaller frames.
> Also, depending on the era, the mtb bikes im familiar with from the 80s had pretty slack geometry and lots of fork rake, the long stems helped "fix" the cruiser geometry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It's been mentioned, but worth mentioning, again. Road racers still do that.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Your body position really doesn't change, much. Same reach to the grips, same posture, same pressure on the hands if you want.


I think that this is where we came in.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

madsweeney said:


> One aspect ive seen to have not been mentioned in this discussion is that long stems were commonly used so riders could fit smaller frames. To shave a little weight and stiffen up the steel frames, road racers and early mtb riders would commonly ride smaller frames.
> Also, depending on the era, the mtb bikes im familiar with from the 80s had pretty slack geometry and lots of fork rake, the long stems helped "fix" the cruiser geometry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Great historical knowledge. True "back in the day" info.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I


mountainbiker24 said:


> You've never been in a cross-country or endurance race, have you? Have you ever ridden a stem over 60mm? Your body position really doesn't change, much. Same reach to the grips, same posture, same pressure on the hands if you want. A lot of cross-country racers put more weight on their hands to get in a more stretched out position, but you can maintain your reach and position with a longer stem. It helps cornering on flat ground and makes climbing easier. If you really can't grasp that concept, either try it before speaking or stfu.


Please explain how climbing is easier? In my experience it has not made a real difference as long as the reach is long enough as to not be cramped up.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Why don't you guys go out and find a stem that works and be done with it. Sheesh.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Mookie said:


> Why don't you guys go out and find a stem that works and be done with it. Sheesh.


I did. I always believed longer stems helped me climb until I experimented with different stems on the same climb and found no difference.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Travis Bickle said:


> I did. I always believed longer stems helped me climb until I experimented with different stems on the same climb and found no difference.


Ah well, I went from 100 to 80 to 70 on an XC bike, and while I like the change, there is no doubt that the price I pay is a wandering front end up steep climbs. The steeper angle also ads to wind resistance when doing 30kmh plus - not that I do that often, but in endurance races, it's not uncommon to be belting along at 40kmh on flat gravel.

I also feel I have less grip on XC race tracks in corners - which makes perfect physical sense - this is given you are comparing the same bike and only changing stems


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You've never been in a cross-country or endurance race, have you? Have you ever ridden a stem over 60mm? Your body position really doesn't change, much. Same reach to the grips, same posture, same pressure on the hands if you want. A lot of cross-country racers put more weight on their hands to get in a more stretched out position, but you can maintain your reach and position with a longer stem. It helps cornering on flat ground and makes climbing easier. If you really can't grasp that concept, either try it before speaking or stfu.


No, it doesn't help cornering. At least not at any kind of speed. Turning at speed is done by getting on the edge of the tire and the rear tire sees the majority of the cornering load, so it requires the majority of your weight. If you carry any sort of corner speed, the evidence will be plain to see on the side knobs.

Nor does it really help climbing, which is why XC bikes have gotten shorter stems and wider bars. There's a reason why bike design changed, and it wasn't because of some grand conspiracy. Short stems, wide bars and slacker head angles move the rider back, and the front wheel forward, which aids in cornering and confidence, because your attack position will be moved backwards as your hands move back regardless of bar width, and has no effect on climbing.

Long stems are a holdover from road bike design and even if you did place that much weight on your hands, which people don't do, it would still play havoc on your back. Long stem or short, it's still going to be your core supporting your upper body. Unless you think people rode 1.8" tires with relatively high pressure with rigid forks by supporting their upper body weight with their hands. That would make for some short and painful rides.

Nobody rides for long without supporting their upper body with their core, nobody. Don't believe me, go ahead and lean on your bars the whole time next time you go riding.

Been riding since '92ish, btw.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

pharmaboy said:


> Ah well, I went from 100 to 80 to 70 on an XC bike, and while I like the change, there is no doubt that the price I pay is a wandering front end up steep climbs. The steeper angle also ads to wind resistance when doing 30kmh plus - not that I do that often, but in endurance races, it's not uncommon to be belting along at 40kmh on flat gravel.
> 
> I also feel I have less grip on XC race tracks in corners - which makes perfect physical sense - this is given you are comparing the same bike and only changing stems


Did you change bars as well?

Which tire is sliding?


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

richde said:


> No, it doesn't help cornering. At least not at any kind of speed. Turning at speed is done by getting on the edge of the tire and the rear tire sees the majority of the cornering load, so it requires the majority of your weight. If you carry any sort of corner speed, the evidence will be plain to see on the side knobs.
> .


I doubt I can explain this, but that is wrong. It's the old myth of road bikes that you lean in order to turn, which again is a complete myth - the answer of course, is lean while going straight ahead and see what happens

The edge of the tyre use is a function of the grip of the surface mainly , although plenty of people use the bike leaned over more than the body in order to engage those knobs on loose surfaces - but that isn't a necessity .

As to your observed proof - the front tyre wears less because there is less weight on it a - simply, it's about 30% front weighting on the flat and 70% rear. This about completely reverses when braking and even more so when braking and going down hill.

Grip is wherever the weight is, that is simply physics and not really up for argument - in order to turn any vehicle in any fluid manner you use steering, weight transfer then becomes the subtle control of that steering. The easiest slide to control is probably 50/50 weight split.

I am not however allowing for power sliding which is obviously not available to a bike rider.

My limit on XC race tracks ( which are usually pretty grippy) is thus always front wheel sliding - you are pretty much going as fast as possible if you are getting slight drift off the front wheel - and that's why buff single is so much faster, because the let go point is easy to feel - well beyond me to explore those limits on gravel corners ( did try once, didn't end well)


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

richde said:


> Did you change bars as well?
> 
> Which tire is sliding?


I did change bars on one bike but not on the other. The other thing I've changed along the way is spacers and also fork travel . It really consistant - the more upright you are, the harder you have to work to generate front end grip - it's just that things like my hands and perineum don't cope too well with that kind of positioning.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

pharmaboy said:


> I doubt I can explain this, but that is wrong. It's the old myth of road bikes that you lean in order to turn, which again is a complete myth - the answer of course, is lean while going straight ahead and see what happens
> 
> The edge of the tyre use is a function of the grip of the surface mainly , although plenty of people use the bike leaned over more than the body in order to engage those knobs on loose surfaces - but that isn't a necessity .
> 
> ...


Well put!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Please explain how climbing is easier? In my experience it has not made a real difference as long as the reach is long enough as to not be cramped up.


I agree that most of the time it doesn't really change anything. In my experience, it's on the super steep climbs that benefit from having that little extra weight over the front, especially late in a ride when you start to fatigue or forget to shift your weight. Whether you use your body to put it there or set up the bike to put it there is the point in question, I guess.

I think most of us can agree that some weight on the front wheel is necessary to keep the front wheel down and tracking straight, it's just a matter of how do you prefer to get it there. Back in the day, I raced a little cross-country, and I used the longer stem, narrow bars, bar ends, with a short toptube. It worked very well for that. When I got more into freeriding and downhill, I switched to "wider" bars and short stem (still late '90s), and that worked really well. I know the geometry if the bikes was different, but I had to focus much more on weighting the front end when on the flats and climbing. Even when wider bars and shorter stems started to catch on with trail bikes, I had to focus more on weighting the front end on corners and steep climbs. This really only became a factor after a couple of hours, when I would be tired and "forget" to weight the front end, causing my front tire to slide, wander, or bounce a bit on the super steep climbs. These days, I run a 60mm stem and 30" bars on my trail bike and an 80mm stem and 28" bars on my rigid 29er, but I'm thinking about entering a race or two and going longer and narrower on my rigid. Mostly because the trails where I plan on racing have super narrow tree gaps, but it is a benefit when the downhills become less important than the climbs and flats.

One other thing I have changed as my bars got wider and stem got shorter is my bar height in relation to my saddle, as Pharmaboy alluded to. I've been running my bars a bit lower, which really helps with the climbing and cornering on flats. Still makes it easy to get over the back on steep descents, but takes away a bit of confidence on techy trails and jumps.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> No, it doesn't help cornering. At least not at any kind of speed. Turning at speed is done by getting on the edge of the tire and the rear tire sees the majority of the cornering load, so it requires the majority of your weight. If you carry any sort of corner speed, the evidence will be plain to see on the side knobs.
> 
> Nor does it really help climbing, which is why XC bikes have gotten shorter stems and wider bars. There's a reason why bike design changed, and it wasn't because of some grand conspiracy. Short stems, wide bars and slacker head angles move the rider back, and the front wheel forward, which aids in cornering and confidence, because your attack position will be moved backwards as your hands move back regardless of bar width, and has no effect on climbing.
> 
> ...


For somebody as experienced as yourself, I can't figure out how little knowledge of riding a bike you appear to have. I've read some of your other posts in other threads, which appear to be inline with an experienced rider with a good understanding of how to ride a mountain bike, and there are even a few things I agree with here. I'm not disagreeing with using your core to support your body. What I do disagree with is pretty much everything else. There is weight on your hands. Your core doesn't support all of your upper body. If you had ever cornered a bicycle on flat ground with very little weight on the front wheel, your front tire would have lost traction and you would have crashed. Also, your body posture doesn't change with a shorter toptube, longer stem, and narrower bars. Other than your hands being a few inches closer together, the reach and angle of your back should be the same. You're just moved further over the front wheel. I thought this was common sense..


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I think part of this thread is that it's not a totally apples-to-apples comparison. Travis isn't just saying that he likes the same bike better with a short stem and wide bars, let alone with a short stem and the same bars. I read his post as saying that the longer front-center distance and top tube in a lot of recent bikes is awesome, and why has it taken so long. I'm not sure if anyone thinks slapping a 35 mm stem and wide bars on a bike with NORBA geometry would be a good idea.

I think people are also getting hung up on semantics. I think almost everybody agrees that mountain bikes work better with more than zero pounds of force transferred through the front wheel, the unicycle guy being a notable exception.

So what's left to argue about? Kind of a lot, I guess. But since a lot if this is preference stuff and I think there's a pretty strong polarization between some of the XC types and some of the gravity types, I doubt anyone's going to be changing his mind.

My own holy grail with bike fit is to be able to transfer as much weight as possible through my feet and none through my hands. All those athletes in Berkeley Mike's pictures are doing exactly that. I think it's not realistic on a bike set to for pedaly riding, at least without making the ergonomics of pedaling hard kind of crappy. But I can try, and keeping that idea in mind has helped me set up my bikes so I can ride them for longer in comfort.

If I did transfer 100% of my weight through my feet, I'd still be weighting my front wheel because my bottom bracket us forward of my rear hub. So why is it such a big deal if some people like to lean on their bars a little to do that and some don't? Since cranks and pedals swivel, there's really bike a lot of choice if I want to add weight beyond what my bike's proportions would put there if I only balanced over the bottom bracket. Since leaning on one's hands is ergonomically crappy, it makes a ton of sense to me that frame designers would try for some ideal weight distribution.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

.


AndrwSwitch said:


> ... Since leaning on one's hands is ergonomically crappy, it makes a ton of sense to me that frame designers would try for some ideal weight distribution.


I would vote: standing with more weight on your hands is more ergonomic than sitting with more weight on your butt. Sitting on your butt turns the biggest power muscle in your body into part cushion! Free your posterior chain, efficiency be dammed.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I have mixed feelings about that. I think I transfer load through my sit bones pretty well. And bicycles wouldn't have saddles at all if that wasn't a thing. But I also don't think it's good to ride with one's ass planted, especially on rough surfaces. It's called a saddle, it's not a couch.

I don't think I'm going to convince anyone via the Internet. So I'm trying to think of a good illustrative experiment, but my carpool's arriving at work. I think it's a big part of what changes by changing handlebar height, though, and that's free - anyone who's curious should try slamming his stem and also maxing out its height.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think part of this thread is that it's not a totally apples-to-apples comparison. Travis isn't just saying that he likes the same bike better with a short stem and wide bars, let alone with a short stem and the same bars. I read his post as saying that the longer front-center distance and top tube in a lot of recent bikes is awesome, and why has it taken so long. I'm not sure if anyone thinks slapping a 35 mm stem and wide bars on a bike with NORBA geometry would be a good idea.
> 
> I think people are also getting hung up on semantics. I think almost everybody agrees that mountain bikes work better with more than zero pounds of force transferred through the front wheel, the unicycle guy being a notable exception.
> 
> ...


Obviously there is some weight supported by your hands, but there is almost no reason to emphasise it.

Yes, the front tire provides the cornering input, but once you're in a turn, the majority of the load falls on the rear tire. The optimum cornering position is to lean the bike to engage the side knobs with your outside leg bent with the heel down. That moves your CG down and places more weight on your feet as a consequence of the CG change. Basically because your CG moves to a point around the height of the bars, there is not much weight on the front tire.

Without a dropper post, you'd achieve the best body and CG position by moving your butt slightly behind the saddle, flattening out your upper body. Arm extension remains about the same, just that your shoulders move down and back. It doesn't work as well as with one, but you have to work with what you have.

Look at Fabien's body position and which wheel he's loading even on the first example of a flat turn.






Unless you're making an uphill turn, a front slide is almost always due to overloading the front, or not leaning the bike to engage the side knobs, not a failure to load it, as the body movement required to take too much pressure off the front would feel very awkward.

Wide bars and a short stem gives you better leverage and places you in a more natural position to properly load the tires.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think some are missing what a good climbing position is. Ideally you are neutral, too low of a riding position and you can't activate your glutes, too high and and your back has to work to brace against pedaling forces. The ideal position is a combination of Top tube, stem length, and bar width. A long stem isn't necessary to achieve this. I have an airhead Rallon with a 50mm stem and 760mm bars. This givea the same reach as my XC bike.

For descending stem length is like head angle. on a steep trail you want a short stem and slack angles. As the grade levels out short stems and slack angles become a challenge.


My Rallon is an amazing bike but on moderate grade descents my XC bike with its 80mm stem and 70 degree head angle is faster. Despite wimpy XC tires the XC bike has a lot more front end grip in flat corners.

Climbing it is even worse. If I am climbing full gas on the Rallon I have to trail brake through the switch backs to get the front end to bite. Braking on climbs on a 30lb bike is not appreciated.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Read what I wrote! It takes energy to put your weight over the front wheel if you have a short stem. A cross-country racer or endurance rider that wants to conserve energy might choose to run a longer stem to put themselves in a natural position for climbing and flats. You know, those times when you aren't going downhill!


My experience is different. 
I have tried medium Nomad with 50mm stem and a L Nomad with 35. 
The L with shorter stem was much easier to keep the front down.
I think there are several factors working here.
The weight of the bike front in realtion to BB is going to be bigger on the L as opposed to Medium, since the CS doesnt change.
Also, I had the seat in the front on the rails on the large frame, while I had it back on yhe medium. This will effectively put my weight more forward on the large and I didnt have to lean over the bars as much as I did on the medium.
So, I was a bit surprise the shorter stem/longer TT climbed better, but it makes a lot of sense...

On the other side, the large was harder to manual.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

I vote to lock this thread due to repeated flagrant attempts to break Newtons third law as well as for making arguments that violate the separation of biking and religion.

Some people like short stems and some people like long stems. Is it asking too much to accept that?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> My experience is different.
> I have tried medium Nomad with 50mm stem and a L Nomad with 35.
> The L with shorter stem was much easier to keep the front down.
> I think there are several factors working here.
> ...


Yup, you made your effective STA steeper and this makes it easier to keep the front end down while climbing.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

borabora said:


> I vote to lock this thread due to repeated flagrant attempts to break Newtons third law as well as for making arguments that violate the separation of biking and religion.
> 
> Some people like short stems and some people like long stems. Is it asking too much to accept that?


You could choose to ignore this thread. Debate is entertaining and this is hurting no one. If we can't endlessly debate mountain bike set up, wheel size and the like, what is the point of the forums? I enjoy other people's opinions even if I disagree with them.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I have a question. 
Lets assume 2 bikes have the same geo, but the TT/reach and HA are different. Everything else, including the wb stays the same. Obviously, different stems would have to be used if the seat to BB stays the same.
Lets also assume the saddle to bars measurement is the same.

What do you think would be the main difference in handling?

Example:
65 degree HA + 24" TT + 35mm stem
67 degree HA + 25" TT + 10mm stem

I also wonder how many of you guys had a chance to try the long WB and found it to be too much for your liking.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

Travis Bickle said:


> You could choose to ignore this thread. Debate is entertaining and this is hurting no one. If we can't endlessly debate mountain bike set up, wheel size and the like, what is the point of the forums? I enjoy other people's opinions even if I disagree with them.


Not entirely true. The debate is hurting my head. And, it's way too entertaining for me to ignore.

While it has remained fairly polite, I think this thread has reached a point where people aren't really trying to understand the other side's position. They just continue to defend their own position. At the very least there should be a quiz one has to pass that proves that one has read all 11 previous pages before being allowed to post....

By the way, I am not actually expecting thread lock down until page 47 when insults have been exchanged and people have built models mimicking the effects of different stem lengths.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

F


jazzanova said:


> My experience is different.
> I have tried medium Nomad with 50mm stem and a L Nomad with 35.
> The L with shorter stem was much easier to keep the front down.
> I think there are several factors working here.
> ...


Given the bike and what you described, I really expect that your opinion isn't actually different to mountainbikers, especially with the seat position change.

Ultimately though, heaps of people are sticking short stems on bikes not designed from the ground up for it- and that's where I think it's gone a bit far


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

borabora said:


> Not entirely true. The debate is hurting my head. And, it's way too entertaining for me to ignore.
> 
> While it has remained fairly polite, I think this thread has reached a point where people aren't really trying to understand the other side's position. They just continue to defend their own position. At the very least there should be a quiz one has to pass that proves that one has read all 11 previous pages before being allowed to post....
> 
> By the way, I am not actually expecting thread lock down until page 47 when insults have been exchanged and people have built models mimicking the effects of different stem lengths.


No way, the only way these threads get to be so entertaining is that new people re enter and rehash old ground ( exhibit A - me).

Like nearly every thread here, it can all be said in one page easily, there'd be no point to posting at all, if you couldn't repeat.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

pharmaboy said:


> F
> 
> Given the bike and what you described, I really expect that your opinion isn't actually different to mountainbikers, especially with the seat position change.
> 
> Ultimately though, heaps of people are sticking short stems on bikes not designed from the ground up for it- and that's where I think it's gone a bit far


Yes, the steep ST and saddle position definitely helped.
I have also found to be harder to lift the front with the longer TT/shorter stem combo on flats while standing, probably due to the bigger weight in the front.
The interesting thing is that I have met far more people who really liked the new forward geometry than those who did not. I am talking about those who had the chance to ride such a bike...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yes, people can be quick to dismiss new geometry as being only applicable to gravity riding but I see it trickling down to all kinds of mountain bikes. There will still be light XC race bikes and obviously the geometry will be different than a trail bike, but they will be a little more capable on the downs while not giving up any climbiness. Bikes continue to evolve and improve and stems will be shorter on average along with this.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yes, people can be quick to dismiss new geometry as being only applicable to gravity riding but I see it trickling down to all kinds of mountain bikes. There will still be light XC race bikes and obviously the geometry will be different than a trail bike, but they will be a little more capable on the downs while not giving up any climbiness. Bikes continue to evolve and improve and stems will be shorter on average along with this.


Absolutely! The average mountain biker, myself included, will benefit from the new trends. I still think there is a place for the old school geometry, but today's trails and riding styles lend themselves to the new geometry. For better or for worse, the tight and twisty trails and cross-country race courses of yesterday appear to disappearing, along with the long stem.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yes, people can be quick to dismiss new geometry as being only applicable to gravity riding but I see it trickling down to all kinds of mountain bikes.


It's already happening. Kona for instance is already all in on the long reach, slacker, shorter stem geometry, even on their XC race platforms.
KONA BIKES | 2016 BIKES | HEI HEI | Hei Hei DL Race
KONA BIKES | 2016 BIKES | KAHUNA | Kahuna DDL


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

aerius said:


> It's already happening. Kona for instance is already all in on the long reach, slacker, shorter stem geometry, even on their XC race platforms.
> KONA BIKES | 2016 BIKES | HEI HEI | Hei Hei DL Race
> KONA BIKES | 2016 BIKES | KAHUNA | Kahuna DDL


there is no downside assuming the CS are short enough. Man that HEI HEI looks great.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> there is no downside assuming the CS are short enough. Man that HEI HEI looks great.


You serious, you really think there is NO downside?

swings and roundabouts


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mookie said:


> Why don't you guys go out and find a stem that works and be done with it. Sheesh.


Dude, its way more complicated than that.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> You serious, you really think there is NO downside?
> 
> swings and roundabouts


tell me what a long stem can do that a short stem can not, assuming the bike is set up tobe run that way with the proper TT length and CS length.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> tell me what a long stem can do that a short stem can not, assuming the bike is set up tobe run that way with the proper TT length and CS length.


Your missing the point - if it makes a positive change in one area, it necessarily makes a negative change in another. its zero sum game - pick the things you most want and get a bike to do that, but you can't have a an awesome downhill bike stable at speed that's great for tight twisty track and climbing switchbacks. Pick one and be happy with your positives and negatives


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

pharmaboy said:


> Your missing the point - if it makes a positive change in one area, it necessarily makes a negative change in another. its zero sum game - pick the things you most want and get a bike to do that, but you can't have a an awesome downhill bike stable at speed that's great for tight twisty track and climbing switchbacks. Pick one and be happy with your positives and negatives


There's no rule that says if something makes one thing better, it makes something else worse.

Know what I do when I need to make an uphill switchback? I lean forward, then once I'm through it, I go back to my comfy upright riding position.

You're also creating an alternate reality where people don't ride the exact same trails as they always have after buying a more capable bike. The turning radius has increased by a couple of inches between the 90's and today...not figuratively, but literally...and stem length has nothing to do with it.

Know a product that was perfected 10 years after it's introduction and never saw any improvements in the next 20 years? Me neither.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> Your missing the point - if it makes a positive change in one area, it necessarily makes a negative change in another. its zero sum game - pick the things you most want and get a bike to do that, but you can't have a an awesome downhill bike stable at speed that's great for tight twisty track and climbing switchbacks. Pick one and be happy with your positives and negatives


there are compromises at the really extreme ends of the spectrum, but my 66 HTA, 35mm stem, 16.3 CS bike is silly quick on flat twisty single track.


----------



## trainnvain (Sep 14, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> there are compromises at the really extreme ends of the spectrum, but my 66 HTA, 35mm stem, 16.3 CS bike is silly quick on flat twisty single track.


Sure, to you it is.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

trainnvain said:


> Sure, to you it is.


It is faster for pretty much everyone who actually tries to ride them.

Think mountain bikes have hit their peak already? I don't.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I have decided to go with a large Nomad even though Santa Cruz recommends a medium up to 5'10", I am 5'8.5".
With a 30mm stem I will have the exact seat to bars distance I am used to.
The big jump is going to be from 111cm on my current bike, to almost 120cm WB.
I wonder what will be more noticeable, the 65 degree HA or the WB...
At least I will know for sure if the forward geo is for me.

The 65 degree HA troubles me a little, all the new forward geo AM bikes have long reach and WB, but the HAs are not as extreme.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

richde said:


> There's no rule that says if something makes one thing better, it makes something else worse.
> 
> Know what I do when I need to make an uphill switchback? I lean forward, then once I'm through it, I go back to my comfy upright riding position.
> 
> ...


No doubt things can improve overall, but there are compromises when changing geometry and set up. A simple non-controversial example is BB height. Obviously there compromises going both lower and higher.

Richde you have not only drunk, but OD's on the koolaid, trying to argue that everything is better for everyone all the time in all circumstances if they chose to have the geometry that you happen to prefer.

Imagine if there was a super tight steep switch back world championship competition. You think the competitors would come with long wheelbases, slack head tube angles, big wheels? Of course not. Its a ridiculous argument.

My oldest bike handles switchbacks the best, and my steep 29er handles them better than my slacker one.

Back to your original point, overall you can change things and make a bike better overall, but that's not to say that everything is always better.

The switchback thing is a minor point that is rarely an issue, only in the tightest situations, and hardly detracts from all the benefits of my more modern bike.

But still, there are always compromises. Always. How much they matter is for you to decide.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yes, people can be quick to dismiss new geometry as being only applicable to gravity riding but I see it trickling down to all kinds of mountain bikes. There will still be light XC race bikes and obviously the geometry will be different than a trail bike, but they will be a little more capable on the downs while not giving up any climbiness. Bikes continue to evolve and improve and stems will be shorter on average along with this.


I'd say it already has. I'm catching up with the Windham WC XC at the moment (quite an entertaining race). I think a lot of people on MTBR would be surprised by the bars and stems on those bikes.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> No doubt things can improve overall, but there are compromises when changing geometry and set up. A simple non-controversial example is BB height. Obviously there compromises going both lower and higher.
> 
> Richde you have not only drunk, but OD's on the koolaid, trying to argue that everything is better for everyone all the time in all circumstances if they chose to have the geometry that you happen to prefer.
> 
> ...


Ever heard the phrase "just because you can't do it, it doesn't mean that nobody can do it?" If everyone with a new bike isn't walking it, the problem isn't the bike. I can guarantee that isn't the case, so the problem is most likely you.

Your allegedly "long" wheelbase is a 5% difference, and adds a LITERAL two inches in turning radius. If a turn is so tight that those two inches matters so much, it would be a chancy maneuver on any bike.

So there's your compromise, a theoretical problem that is iffy on any bike offset by more confidence going downhill and better body positioning for cornering. Faster downhill and faster through corners equals a real speed difference vs. "this one corner I saw."


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I watched it yesterday. From the front shots...the bars don't look super wide. From the few pro XC bikes that GMBN featured...the bar lengths are all under 700. Kulhavy runs a 700. Most of the other guys run 685's.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

evasive said:


> I'd say it already has. I'm catching up with the Windham WC XC at the moment (quite an entertaining race). I think a lot of people on MTBR would be surprised by the bars and stems on those bikes.


Go ahead and set your bike up like that and tell us how fun and fast it is.



RS VR6 said:


> I watched it yesterday. From the front shots...the bars don't look super wide. From the few pro XC bikes that GMBN featured...the bar lengths are all under 700. Kulhavy runs a 700. Most of the other guys run 685's.


Wide bars in a mass start event like that would be dangerous.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Coming up on 13 pages boys and girls. Just ride the stem you have and stop analyzing the whys and the what fors.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Ever heard the phrase "just because you can't do it, it doesn't mean that nobody can do it?" If everyone with a new bike isn't walking it, the problem isn't the bike. I can guarantee that isn't the case, so the problem is most likely you.
> 
> Your allegedly "long" wheelbase is a 5% difference, and adds a LITERAL two inches in turning radius. If a turn is so tight that those two inches matters so much, it would be a chancy maneuver on any bike.
> 
> So there's your compromise, a theoretical problem that is iffy on any bike offset by more confidence going downhill and better body positioning for cornering. Faster downhill and faster through corners equals a real speed difference vs. "this one corner I saw."


They aren't faster through most corners, and where do you get 2 inches in turning radius from? There's more to it than just the difference in wheelbase. You're correct in saying just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. I think you should think about that one. Just because you can't maximize the benefits if old geometry doesn't mean others can't.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> There's no rule that says if something makes one thing better, it makes something else worse.
> 
> Know what I do when I need to make an uphill switchback? I lean forward, then once I'm through it, I go back to my comfy upright riding position.
> 
> ...


Are you kidding me? No compromise? Toptube and stem length have nothing to do with wheelbase? Are you literally, not figuratively, stupid? It's like you completely ignore what everybody else says and then say they're clueless. In reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> tell me what a long stem can do that a short stem can not, assuming the bike is set up tobe run that way with the proper TT length and CS length.


It's been explained numerous times.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Coming up on 13 pages boys and girls. Just ride the stem you have and stop analyzing the whys and the what fors.


Why not? How can somebody make an informed decision without analizing the options? I know it seems silly to argue stem length, but it makes a big difference in how bikes handle and the trails and riding preferences they are designed for. What else would you prefer to discuss? The disappearing middle class in America? It would be worth discussing, but few people have a clue when it comes to politics, and I can't change that, anyway. Might as well discuss mountain bikes.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

richde said:


> Go ahead and set your bike up like that and tell us how fun and fast it is.


I'm not sure you're keeping track of what you're arguing, or with whom.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> They aren't faster through most corners, and where do you get 2 inches in turning radius from? There's more to it than just the difference in wheelbase. You're correct in saying just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. I think you should think about that one. Just because you can't maximize the benefits if old geometry doesn't mean others can't.


Shorter stems put you in a better position for cornering, not overweighing the front means faster corner speed.

The ultimate limit in turning radius is when you turn the front wheel near 90 degrees, that's where that huge 2" difference comes into play.

I don't have to maximize old geometry, I have a new bike that is superior to the one I wore out, and there's absolutely no reason to go back to an inferior design because a bunch of people get butt hurt because their bike is no longer seen as the best design.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

richde said:


> Shorter stems put you in a better position for cornering, not overweighing the front means faster corner speed.
> 
> The ultimate limit in turning radius is when you turn the front wheel near 90 degrees, that's where that huge 2" difference comes into play.
> 
> I don't have to maximize old geometry, I have a new bike that is superior to the one I wore out, and there's absolutely no reason to go back to an inferior design because a bunch of people get butt hurt because their bike is no longer seen as the best design.


Which bike do you ride?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Are you kidding me? No compromise? Toptube and stem length have nothing to do with wheelbase? Are you literally, not figuratively, stupid? It's like you completely ignore what everybody else says and then say they're clueless. In reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Top tubes really haven't changed much. Like I said before, a 2015 F-Si has the same TT length as a '95 Yeti ARC. The increase in wheelbase is due to shallower angles and increased travel. That's one of the things you'll discover when you actually verify your feels before making unfounded claims.

Wheelbases could be shorter, but designers apparently don't feel they need to be, and the non-closed minded riding public agrees. Despite a bunch of people making the claim that the wheelbases are too long, the majority of the people who actually ride them seem to disagree.

Chainstay length on old bikes were overly long for no reason whatsoever. Modern 29'ers have the same length CS as that "legendary" ARC with it's much smaller 26" wheels. Going to defend that too?

Stems don't, and will never have, any effect on wheelbase. But they do have an effect on weight distribution, and it's far easier to shift your weight forward for the rare steep sections where it's required than to constantly shift it backwards for cornering and descending. Oh, and they're more comfortable too.

This isn't some grand conspiracy, the bike industry isn't colluding to build unsuitable bikes. If you're so sure you have a better idea, go ahead and get into the business. If you're right you can make a fortune and change the industry and end it's battle against the riding public.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

richde said:


> Top tubes really haven't changed much. Like I said before, a 2015 F-Si has the same TT length as a '95 Yeti ARC.


So why would one go to a shorter stem if switching between those two frames?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Shayne said:


> So why would one go to a shorter stem if switching between those two frames?


Because the old idea of needing your weight forward all the time was wrong?

The 2:1 ratio of bar width increase and stem length reduction still moves your hands backwards, and then there's the backwards hand positioning with the increased sweep of modern bars. The trend of moving your hands backwards moves your CG backwards for increased cornering ability and more confidence (and far lower endo potential) because your nose isn't over your front axle. Sure, you can overcome it to a degree, but the fact remains that it would be better to not be so far forward.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

My hand position vis-a-vis the seat back and BB haven't changed much in years. Bikes have changed a lot but largely from the BB forward. As such, stem length has changed to keep me putting weight in front when and where it is needed.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Top tubes really haven't changed much. Like I said before, a 2015 F-Si has the same TT length as a '95 Yeti ARC. The increase in wheelbase is due to shallower angles and increased travel. That's one of the things you'll discover when you actually verify your feels before making unfounded claims.
> 
> Wheelbases could be shorter, but designers apparently don't feel they need to be, and the non-closed minded riding public agrees. Despite a bunch of people making the claim that the wheelbases are too long, the majority of the people who actually ride them seem to disagree.
> 
> ...


Alright. While toptube lengths may not be all that much different, effective toptube lengths when accounting for proper saddle position have changed drastically. Longer chainstays provide more compliance and provide stability. This also helps for climbing, provided rear traction is sufficient. To keep the wheelbase short, you would shorten the front end. Thus a longer stem is necessary. New trails are becoming more flow and more about sustainability than the hiking trails some of us ride/rode on. These newer type trails benefit from the new geometry. It's amazing what looking at the big picture can do.

P.S. For the last time, you don't shift your weight back to corner. Again, try riding a bike sometime. Maybe then this will make more sense. Derp!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Alright. While toptube lengths may not be all that much different, effective toptube lengths when accounting for proper saddle position have changed drastically. Longer chainstays provide more compliance and provide stability. This also helps for climbing. To keep the wheelbase short, you would shorten the front end. Thus a longer stem is necessary. New trails are becoming more flow and more about sustainability than the hiking trails some of us ride/rode on. These newer type trails benefit from the new geometry. It's amazing what looking at the big picture can do.
> 
> P.S. For the last time, you don't shift your weight back to corner. Again, try riding a bike sometime. Maybe then this will make more sense. Derp!


Did you really just post this? Have you not been paying attention to what bike designers are doing with bikes? ETT lengths are getting longer on XC, trail and all mountain bikes in general and chain stay lengths are getting shorter. Designers are not shortening top tubes, it's the other way around. The ETT term came about when designers left the road bike mentality and started to make mountain bikes more like BMX and trials bikes (PTL). No more straight top tubes that were basically level and you could measure just laying a tape measure on them.

I own an small Evil Following with a 23" top tube and 16.8" CS's, that's shorter CS's than my 92 Stumpy, 96 Kona Hot and every other 26" wheeled bike I've had since then. They all had shorter top tubes as well. Have you looked at the geometry of the Trek Stash, Canfield Bro Riot, new Stumpy......? Shorter stems have been designed into these newer geometry bikes along with wider bars and for the most part work well unless you are a cusper and are in between sizes. Then it's more about making what's available fit you as best as you are able. I'm not inclined to size up in frames too much to gain certain attributes like better climbing or more stability. If you want to optimize all of that then you need to pick you frame appropriately and not get too locked into one frame because it's popular.

The Following is literally the best climbing bike I've ever owned considering its 67* HA and 140mm fork. It's all about suspension kinematics and traction a swells geo!

I do agree to really carve a corner you don't do it all on the back wheel. It's also not about sitting in the saddle either. To corner you need to be a dynamic rider on the bike shifting the weight for and aft as well as side to side to really carve through turns. This is why dropper post are so popular (that's probably another thread topic for Travis to start).


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Dude, I was replying to whatshisnutz. I was referring to older geometry when talking about longer chainstays and shorter effective toptubes. After rereading my post, I can see how you might have interpreted it the way you did. Still, you obviously didn't read much else. Read things before commenting on them.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Alright. While toptube lengths may not be all that much different, effective toptube lengths when accounting for proper saddle position have changed drastically. Longer chainstays provide more compliance and provide stability. This also helps for climbing, provided rear traction is sufficient. To keep the wheelbase short, you would shorten the front end. Thus a longer stem is necessary. New trails are becoming more flow and more about sustainability than the hiking trails some of us ride/rode on. These newer type trails benefit from the new geometry. It's amazing what looking at the big picture can do.


Wait, long wheelbases are bad because they're more stable, but long chainstays are good because they're more stable? I wish you people would get your arguments straight, because it sounds like the old-school design guys are arguing with themselves.

Once again, massive lulz at the idea that you NEED a long stem for anything. Again, I dare you to shop your idea in the industry and confront the grand conspiracy in it's face.

You need to get off your high horse about the trails your ride and what you perceive everyone else does. You obviously don't ride with other people enough if you think that new bikes can't ride old trails. Maybe you see them there, but you don't quite perceive what's happening. Work on that.



mountainbiker24 said:


> P.S. For the last time, you don't shift your weight back to corner. Again, try riding a bike sometime. Maybe then this will make more sense. Derp!


Somebody better tell all those DS racers that they're doing it wrong. Or maybe you are. The majority of the cornering load falling on the rear tire doesn't happen because you aren't weighting it.

Since you seem to need another lesson, here's Fabien telling you how to do it, again:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF5K9V2w6W8

But maybe you know better than a former DH world champion and current EWS racer....or maybe not.

I ride plenty, btw...and my results speak for themselves. That's your cue to start in with the "I don't race or track my rides, but I'm sure I'm doing it better than most people" excuse. I really like that one, nothing quite like using subjective feelings to dispute actual, objective, results.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Yep. I've lost interest in trying to help you understand that some riders and some trails benefit from geometry that is different than yours. Enjoy riding your bike!


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Dude, I was replying to whatshisnutz. I was referring to older geometry when talking about longer chainstays and shorter effective toptubes. After rereading my post, I can see how you might have interpreted it the way you did. Still, you obviously didn't read much else. Read things before commenting on them.


But XC bikes don't have longer top tubes.

Here, I'll help you out...

Here's the geometry of a 1996 Yeti ARC, go to page 4:
http://www.mtb-kataloge.de/Bikekataloge/PDF/Yeti/1996.pdf

Here's the geometry of a 2015 Cannondale F-Si, click on the geometry tab:
F-Si Carbon 1 - F-SI - XC HARDTAIL - MOUNTAIN - BIKES - 2015

I'll help you out even more, the actual top tube length of a medium ARC is 22.8", and the actual top tube length of the medium Cannodale is 22.2".

What you're using is subjective feelings, the problem is (and it seems to be a recurring problem) is that the objective and easy to find facts disagree...and you don't seem to care.



mountainbiker24 said:


> Yep. I've lost interest in trying to help you understand that some riders and some trails benefit from geometry that is different than yours. Enjoy riding your bike!


Good plan, since people who know much more than you (like bike designers and racers) seem to disagree. I'll defer to the experts.

Even Tom Ritchey gets it:
Ritchey P-29er Mountain Bike Frame - Black/Hi-Vis Yellow


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Dude, I was replying to whatshisnutz. I was referring to older geometry when talking about longer chainstays and shorter effective toptubes. After rereading my post, I can see how you might have interpreted it the way you did. Still, you obviously didn't read much else. Read things before commenting on them.


Dude, I did read your post and his and most of all the others. You're still out there kind of lost. Yes, longer chain stays are more compliant and can help you climb if you don't know how to ride and they slow the handling of you don't like to turn much. That's not were things are going. Do don't be so agro and try not to get your feathers all ruffled! This is a forum were things like this are discussed.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What well-regarded production bikes have relatively short ETT and relatively long CS? Ripley? TBLTc? Sultan? SB95? Anthem X29 and Trance X29? TR500? I see short stems on some of these bikes too, but their reach might allow it. Might just be their seat tube is that much more forward, and can be compensated with seatpost offset and saddle fore-aft distance.

I see more going _slightly_ long on both ends, but only up to about 1/2" longer. Examples being the Carbine 29, Yetis, Niners, Pivot 429, Syndicate's V10s with custom links (massive space between the chainring and rear tire + buzzworks offset headset), Trek 29ers and DH bike, and Lapierre DH.

As for stability, it's more like the longer the CS, the less intense the feedback your rear wheel transmits to the frame, as it pitches the bike up less. Same deal with the front, with a longer front center pitching a bike up less going over the same height obstacle. Combine both, and it's more stable overall, but the turning radius is much wider. Not ideal to have a long wheelbase bike if your speed is constantly limited due to having to hit the brakes to make it around tight corners.

Old school frames had tall stems with lots of rise, due to short travel forks and rigid forks that weren't suspension corrected. Stems weren't that long unless the rider was tall, since the frames didn't proportionately get much bigger in the larger sizes.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Varaxis said:


> What well-regarded production bikes have relatively short ETT and relatively long CS? Ripley? TBLTc? Sultan? SB95? Anthem X29 and Trance X29? TR500? I see short stems on some of these bikes too, but their reach might allow it. Might just be their seat tube is that much more forward, and can be compensated with seatpost offset and saddle fore-aft distance.
> 
> I see more going _slightly_ long on both ends, but only up to about 1/2" longer. Examples being the Carbine 29, Yetis, Niners, Pivot 429, Syndicate's V10s with custom links (massive space between the chainring and rear tire + buzzworks offset headset), Trek 29ers and DH bike, and Lapierre DH.
> 
> ...


Good informative post.

There are 2 historical things that I think have an influence on this arena.

1. 29" wheels. This necessarily changed how bikes geo worked compared to the previous sizes which you had heaps of spare space. Niners introduced in particular a focus on CS length as almost a war ground between 29er fans and 26er fans, especially since manufacturers were trying to build L frames and S frames with the exact same rear triangle and just wanting to make minimal changes on the front triangle between sizes.

2. Stem lengths used to be 130mm or so circa 2000. If 100mm is better than 130mm, and 90mm feels better than 100mm, it doesn't follow that 35mm must be better again.

I feel mountain bike design is driven by trends with a little engineering and is prone to over correcting and over dramatising differences. Maybe it's just these pages, but people have a religious zeal when it comes to wide bars, or short chain stays, or short stems etc. #enduro #stiffness #allmountain lol.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

This article http://betterride.net/blog/2010/2-things-you-can-buy-and-instantly-improve-your-bike-handling/ states that your handlebars should be 1-3" below the saddle height. This thread hasn't mentioned bar height as a factor.

I have a 70mm, 5 degree stem that I'm going to try. My existing stem is 100mm, 17 degree. I have to run a negative rise but even at that, my bars are a little above the stem on my 29er. I recently went from a flat 580mm, 5 degree sweep bars to a flat 650mm, 9 degree sweep. Right now, I don't notice much difference due to the bar change, except that it feels a bit too wide when I'm on the bar ends.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm not sure people like set-ups like that anymore. Mine has been like this for 20 years, though the stem was a 110 instead of the 125 over the years. That said I have also gone from a flatbar to a riser with sweep. 

I'm still committed but don't stretch out so much anymore.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why not? How can somebody make an informed decision without analizing the options? I know it seems silly to argue stem length, but it makes a big difference in how bikes handle and the trails and riding preferences they are designed for. What else would you prefer to discuss? The disappearing middle class in America? It would be worth discussing, but few people have a clue when it comes to politics, and I can't change that, anyway. Might as well discuss mountain bikes.


I'd rather see a 20 page thread discussing an Awesome Strap versus a seat bag option.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

A 1-3" drop from the seat to the bars is hard to understand these days. Sure when we rode 70-80 mil forks on XC bikes that would probably work out but I always worked to set bikes up with bar center level to the seat and that creates a nice neutral position if the bike frame fits well. With today's geometry, bikes stack height and longer forks this figure is not realistic unless you have proportionally long legs like Ryan Treebon. The other thing that people don't mention is bar width in relation to rider height and wingspan. At 5'-7" with a 30.5 inseam, I'm not comfortable over 730-750mm depending on bar width stem length and top tube length. My Spider 29 has a 60mm stem and 730 bars my following has a 50mm stem and 750 bars, my FTW steel 29+ bike has an 80mm stem and 700 bars. The Following is level bar center to seat top the FTW bike is close but the Spider has more stack height so its a bit bar high but it rides and climbs great with its longer rear center geometry. 
The other thing to mention is who has had a good bike fit over the years like a New England Fit Kit as an example? Do folks know what their critical fit measurements are? Upper body, inseam, feet, neck, arm, neck plus arm, saddle height to pedal, top tube length and finally stem length? If you don't know these what these measurements are for you then you should know them. I see a lot of guys on bike that are too big for them. I'm not sure if it's a macho thing but it makes me laugh. The same this applies to crank arm length. This is also proportionate to height and inseam length. I've had a couple of 175 cranks but really 170 is closest and the most efficient stock length for me. Crank arms that are too long for you are not helping your riding, especially if you want to spin good circles and have a good cadence when you're climbing. 
There are a few good fit systems out there, Zinn's bike Fit Calculator is also a good reference. People should have someone that knows what they're doing help them find these critical measurements then you'll see what you need and you can apply them to fit your bikes correctly. I'd bet a lot of people would be very surprised at what they find. 
You can use these measurements to apply the fitting of the newer geo bikes with adjustments to stem length and bar width. It's not rocket science but it's all important to a good fitting bike.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I'd rather see a 20 page thread discussing an Awesome Strap versus a seat bag option.


Haha yep! Some folks will get cranked anyway the discussions go, especially if people don't agree with them!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

manitou2200 said:


> Haha yep! Some folks will get cranked anyway the discussions go, especially if people don't agree with them!


I always feel guilty eating ice cream in front of lactose intolerant people.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

manitou2200 said:


> A 1-3" drop from the seat to the bars is hard to understand these days. Sure when we rode 70-80 mil forks on XC bikes that would probably work out but I always worked to set bikes up with bar center level to the seat and that creates a nice neutral position if the bike frame fits well. With today's geometry, bikes stack height and longer forks this figure is not realistic unless you have proportionally long legs


When my saddle is fully slammed, it's just barely below my bars. That's not uncommon to see in a lot of WC DH bike checks, either. By extension, my climbing position is a little over 3" above my bars and my base riding position is an inch or two above, depending on terrain, etc. I'm not sure why you would laugh at someone on a bike too large if you think that a saddle level with bars is a sign of an appropriate fit frame. I have short legs, but the stack height it would take for me to level the bars with my saddle would be nuts (for a mountain bike).


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

evasive said:


> When my saddle is fully slammed, it's just barely below my bars. That's not uncommon to see in a lot of WC DH bike checks, either. By extension, my climbing position is a little over 3" above my bars and my base riding position is an inch or two above, depending on terrain, etc. I'm not sure why you would laugh at someone on a bike too large if you think that a saddle level with bars is a sign of an appropriate fit frame. I have short legs, but the stack height it would take for me to level the bars with my saddle would be nuts (for a mountain bike).


How long are your legs and what size frame are you riding? Slammed seat and level with your bars? Are you kidding? Maybe if your bike is on a 20 degree down slope I could see that being the case.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Oh you mean level wit the bars like this?  








Sam's a WC DH rider have you heard of him? Do you know how to use a level? It's not that I don't make mistakes or can't be wrong but you're out in left field on this issue!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

This whole thread is out in left field.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

No offense dude but I would not ask for your help in fitting a bike if I was a newb!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

DJ, I guess you're right about that! Over and out!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Just one more for reference here and the laugh. This one's closer to level.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

manitou2200 said:


> Sam's a WC DH rider have you heard of him? Do you know how to use a level? It's not that I don't make mistakes or can't be wrong but you're out in left field on this issue!


So why is my fully extended climbing position that much higher? Because I do a lot of steep climbs perched on the nose of my saddle. That shortens the distance to the cranks, and I want my fully extended position high enough to compensate for that. As I said, my normal riding position is lower, but still above the bars.

Yes, I've heard of Sam Hill. I'll assume that wasn't a serious question and that you're making fun. One example. OK: look at Minaar. Now we're even. 

I know how to use a level. But hey, just for fun, let's look at some bike checks and see where saddles tend to line up with bars.

Let's start with some Enduro World Series bikes:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/crankworx-2014-enduro-world-series-bike-checks.html

Not all, but a significant number of the EWS riders have their saddles roughly level with their bars when the dropper is fully down. Martin Maes is posing with his extended, and the saddle is well above the bar.

Here's some DH bikes:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/2015-nz-dh-national-champs-bike-checks.html

It's not a WC bike check, but there are a number of WC riders represented: Bulldog, Brannigan, Ed and Wyn Masters. Some riders have their saddle slightly lower than the bars, but there are quite a few essentially level. On DH bikes.

If I'm out in left field, I've got good company.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

richde said:


> I'll help you out even more, the actual top tube length of a medium ARC is 22.8", and the actual top tube length of the medium Cannodale is 22.2".


So based on that example I should use an even longer stem now than I did 20 years ago.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

An optimal seat position for climbing would allow the seat to tip downward, just as for downs it is tilted up.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> This article http://betterride.net/blog/2010/2-things-you-can-buy-and-instantly-improve-your-bike-handling/ states that your handlebars should be 1-3" below the saddle height. This thread hasn't mentioned bar height as a factor.
> 
> I have a 70mm, 5 degree stem that I'm going to try. My existing stem is 100mm, 17 degree. I have to run a negative rise but even at that, my bars are a little above the stem on my 29er. I recently went from a flat 580mm, 5 degree sweep bars to a flat 650mm, 9 degree sweep. Right now, I don't notice much difference due to the bar change, except that it feels a bit too wide when I'm on the bar ends.


Tried the shorter stem. It didn't take much to get used to. I thought all was well until the end of the ride, then felt stiffness between the shoulder blades and back of the neck.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Another new trail bike designed with the long front centre and short stem.
Devinci troy 2016
Basically the new troy in medium is the last year model in large...
Reach for a medium is 440mm...
http://m.pinkbike.com/news/devinci-troy-crankworx-2015.html


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm seeing a bad trend here. People are putting short stems on bikes not designed for short stems or not designed for their particular fit with a short stem, just to get on the short stem bandwagon. If you are going to use a short stem, the bike should be designed for a short stem and the bike should fit you properly with a short stem. I wouldn't take my 15 year old bike designed for a 120mm stem and slap a 50mm stem on it. That would be just stupid.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm seeing a bad trend here. People are putting short stems on bikes not designed for short stems or not designed for their particular fit with a short stem, just to get on the short stem bandwagon. If you are going to use a short stem, the bike should be designed for a short stem and the bike should fit you properly with a short stem. I wouldn't take my 15 year old bike designed for a 120mm stem and slap a 50mm stem on it. That would be just stupid.


But that's what the dude, Gene, in the article a couple of posts above espouses.

I tend to agree with you. I was just experimenting to see if I could use a shorter stem, and what the effects would be. Seems it screwed up my bike fit. Maybe if I could have lowered my handlebars further, it might have worked out better.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

manitou2200 said:


> Haha yep! Some folks will get cranked anyway the discussions go, especially if people don't agree with them!


Pot meet Kettle. You clearly are unable to form coherent thoughts. Enjoy your shared delusions with richde.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm seeing a bad trend here. People are putting short stems on bikes not designed for short stems or not designed for their particular fit with a short stem, just to get on the short stem bandwagon. If you are going to use a short stem, the bike should be designed for a short stem and the bike should fit you properly with a short stem. I wouldn't take my 15 year old bike designed for a 120mm stem and slap a 50mm stem on it. That would be just stupid.


But what about wide bars? If you switch out to a wider bar, you need a shorter stem, right?

I basically did what you said not to do to my Superlight (but its not my main ride anyway). It originally had 650 wide bars and a 120 stem, and I switched to a 760 bar and 75 mm stem. I also put a longer fork on it which slackens the HTA. 
I'd say it works.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

evasive said:


> So why is my fully extended climbing position that much higher? Because I do a lot of steep climbs perched on the nose of my saddle. That shortens the distance to the cranks, and I want my fully extended position high enough to compensate for that. As I said, my normal riding position is lower, but still above the bars.
> 
> Yes, I've heard of Sam Hill. I'll assume that wasn't a serious question and that you're making fun. One example. OK: look at Minaar. Now we're even.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was joking and trying to keep this discussion on the lighter side and not so agro like some here!
The only thing your links demonstrate is that we are both correct. I see plenty of extended saddle heights that are at or below the bars, it looks to me like it's 50/50. I have a 30.5 inseam and ride small frames mostly saddle top at bar height or close. I never said it was incorrect to have a saddle top above bar height but with bigger wheels and longer travel forks comes higher stack heights. If you ride 26 wheels chances are your seat is going to be above bar height. My [email protected] 29r's challenge that rule, so I don't buy the 1-3" above bar height as a guideline. Really that article is just suppositions and I did not feel it was very well written or researched. 
I guess we're both in left field but at least we cover the ground out there!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Pot meet Kettle. You clearly are unable to form coherent thoughts. Enjoy your shared delusions with richde.


Great another attack this time for my auto spell incorrect grammar. 
Like I said before dude, you need to chill, you can't attack everyone that doesn't agree with you. It makes you look like a tool! 
Now go sit in the corner.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> But what about wide bars? If you switch out to a wider bar, you need a shorter stem, right?
> 
> I basically did what you said not to do to my Superlight (but its not my main ride anyway). It originally had 650 wide bars and a 120 stem, and I switched to a 760 bar and 75 mm stem. I also put a longer fork on it which slackens the HTA.
> I'd say it works.


Yeah, changing the stem length necessitates changing bar width/ length to keep the same fit. 
If you look at your upper body bike fit as a triangle with you and the bars making the triangle, with legs A and B of the triangle as your arms (fixed length) and your bars as leg C. If you shorten the stem length then you move leg C the hypotenuse of the triangle in towards your body making you sit more upright. So to keep the same fit or upper body angle forward towards the front wheel you'll need to lengthen leg C (bar width/ length) of the triangle changing the angle (to a greater angle) between A and B spreading your arms apart and moving your upper body back to your optimal position towards the front wheel. 
The limits are of course your physical size, length of your arms and the geometry of the bike. If the bikes top tube is on the short side for your fit then you can only go so short on the stem length which is governed by the maximum bar length you are able to use. 
We've been using short stems on freeride, AM and downhill bikes for close to 15 years, it's really nothing new at all. The application of short stems and wide bars on XC and trail bikes is challenging peoples idea of fit and I think creating plenty of misunderstanding.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

MikeDee said:


> But that's what the dude, Gene, in the article a couple of posts above espouses.
> 
> I tend to agree with you. I was just experimenting to see if I could use a shorter stem, and what the effects would be. Seems it screwed up my bike fit. Maybe if I could have lowered my handlebars further, it might have worked out better.





manitou2200 said:


> Yeah, changing the stem length necessitates changing bar width/ length to keep the same fit.
> If you look at your upper body bike fit as a triangle with you and the bars making the triangle, with legs A and B of the triangle as your arms (fixed length) and your bars as leg C. If you shorten the stem length then you move leg C the hypotenuse of the triangle in towards your body making you sit more upright. So to keep the same fit or upper body angle forward towards the front wheel you'll need to lengthen leg C (bar width/ length) of the triangle changing the angle (to a greater angle) between A and B spreading your arms apart and moving your upper body back to your optimal position towards the front wheel.
> The limits are of course your physical size, length of your arms and the geometry of the bike. If the bikes top tube is on the short side for your fit then you can only go so short on the stem length which is governed by the maximum bar length you are able to use.
> We've been using short stems on freeride, AM and downhill bikes for close to 15 years, it's really nothing new at all. The application of short stems and wide bars on XC and trail bikes is challenging peoples idea of fit and I think creating plenty of misunderstanding.


Sometimes, changing the stem length necessitates changing frame size


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Yep I'd say that is correct!


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> But what about wide bars? If you switch out to a wider bar, you need a shorter stem, right?
> 
> I basically did what you said not to do to my Superlight (but its not my main ride anyway). It originally had 650 wide bars and a 120 stem, and I switched to a 760 bar and 75 mm stem. I also put a longer fork on it which slackens the HTA.
> I'd say it works.


Questions about reach with a wider bar.

Going with a wider bar doesn't really change the reach much? Since you're going wider...your body will be lower. Isn't that just like lowering the bar and not changing the reach? If your reach changes...its got to be only an extremely small amount. If your frame does not have a long reach won't going with a super short stem and some wide bars put you in an extremely upright in a pedaling position?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

manitou2200 said:


> Yeah, changing the stem length necessitates changing bar width/ length to keep the same fit.
> If you look at your upper body bike fit as a triangle with you and the bars making the triangle, with legs A and B of the triangle as your arms (fixed length) and your bars as leg C. If you shorten the stem length then you move leg C the hypotenuse of the triangle in towards your body making you sit more upright. So to keep the same fit or upper body angle forward towards the front wheel you'll need to lengthen leg C (bar width/ length) of the triangle changing the angle (to a greater angle) between A and B spreading your arms apart and moving your upper body back to your optimal position towards the front wheel.
> The limits are of course your physical size, length of your arms and the geometry of the bike. If the bikes top tube is on the short side for your fit then you can only go so short on the stem length which is governed by the maximum bar length you are able to use.
> We've been using short stems on freeride, AM and downhill bikes for close to 15 years, it's really nothing new at all. The application of short stems and wide bars on XC and trail bikes is challenging peoples idea of fit and I think creating plenty of misunderstanding.


It's not exactly the same fit.

Everything I've seen about wide bars and short stems is that there is supposed to be a 2:1 ratio between width and length. That still moves your hands slightly backwards, along with the sweep angle angle moving the hands even further backwards due to the increased length of swept back bar.

Why? Because your shoulders and hands form a trapezoid, not a triangle.

Get something to approximate a handlebar, a tape measure, and a table and try it out. It's more like a 3:1 ratio than 2:1.

Not to say that moving your hands, and therefore your CG, backwards is a bad thing.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> But what about wide bars? If you switch out to a wider bar, you need a shorter stem, right?
> 
> I basically did what you said not to do to my Superlight (but its not my main ride anyway). It originally had 650 wide bars and a 120 stem, and I switched to a 760 bar and 75 mm stem. I also put a longer fork on it which slackens the HTA.
> I'd say it works.


That's true, but how much shorter? You went 4.5 cm shorter. That seems like a lot, but if it seems to fit right for you...

Someone posted for every 2cm increase on the bar, 1cm shorter on the stem. In your case that would mean a stem 5.5cm shorter. That's a 65mm stem for you. Personally, seems too much. In my case, I went from 58cm to 65cm, which means for me a stem 3.5cm shorter, which means 70mm stem for me (was 105mm). This is what I tried, but it gives me neck and upper back issues. But, the stem angle wasn't the same and the new bars have 4 degrees more back sweep... Wish this were easier.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

richde said:


> It's not exactly the same fit.
> 
> Everything I've seen about wide bars and short stems is that there is supposed to be a 2:1 ratio between width and length. That still moves your hands slightly backwards, along with the sweep angle angle moving the hands even further backwards due to the increased length of swept back bar.
> 
> ...


Yep, you're correct. It's not the same, I should have said similar instead of same. The point I was making is best demonstrated with a triangle, the trapezoid as a shape would not make the best example for this issue. 
Regardless, I have not found climbing on steeps to be much different or more difficult with the shorter stems and wider bars than what o was using on my trail bikes 5-6 years ago. 
With that said I'm not looking to replace all my bars and stems on my bikes with longer bars and shorter stems especially my older bikes. I do like my newer bike builds with 50-70 mil stems and 700-750mm bar lengths!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

This thread is Analysis Paralysis!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> This thread is Analysis Paralysis!


Move along if you've got nothing constructive to add!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

manitou2200 said:


> Move along if you've got nothing constructive to add!


Who are you to tell me what to do?


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Who are you to tell me what to do?


I'm your alter ego! Do you need a time out or are you just ramping up that big post count of yours?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

manitou2200 said:


> I'm your alter ego! Do you need a time out or are you just ramping up that big post count of yours?


****, time out? Bring it on bra!


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Oh we've got a tough guy!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

> We're going to make a blanket statement here that's intended to offend plenty of people... anyone who doesn't consider themselves a purely XC rider shouldn't be running a stem over 60mm on a mountain bike.


Shots fired!

Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach - Mountain Bikes Features - Vital MTB

I agree, there's no justification for running a long stem on a modern trail bike....


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

David R said:


> Shots fired!
> 
> Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach - Mountain Bikes Features - Vital MTB
> 
> I agree, there's no justification for running a long stem on a modern trail bike....


Here's a justification. I had a 60mm and I wanted a little more room so I switched to a 75mm. It felt a little better. The downside? None.

If you want to argue about all the terrible things that 5/8" inch will cause, I will suggest you need to be removed from your home, in a straight jacket, immediately!

If you need help believing me, first, hold your two fingers apart 15mm. See how small that space is?

Now you have to understand, you can move your hands forward that tiny amount, without moving your shoulders or chest forward. It's a tiny rotation of of the shoulder joint with an insignificant change in center of gravity.

Ok lunatics, continue!


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> Here's a justification. I had a 60mm and I wanted a little more room so I switched to a 75mm. It felt a little better. The downside? None.
> 
> If you want to argue about all the terrible things that 5/8" inch will cause, I will suggest you need to be removed from your home, in a straight jacket, immediately!
> 
> ...


Maybe the frame is a size too small for you? 
Just kidding


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> If you want to argue about all the terrible things that 5/8" inch will cause, I will suggest you need to be removed from your home, in a straight jacket, immediately!


I disagree. For some people, 10mm one way or the other in a stem can make a comfortable bike very uncomfortable.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I disagree. For some people, 10mm one way or the other in a stem can make a comfortable bike very uncomfortable.


But I already said it was more comfortable with no down side. So now you are supposed to argue that I am wrong about my own opinion about my own set up on my own bike, and that I don't really know that I have damaged my riding, my karma, and my life, by having a 75 mm stem, and that I must be possessed by the devil to think that everything is ok.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> But I already said it was more comfortable with no down side. So now you are supposed to argue that I am wrong about my own opinion about my own set up on my own bike, and that I don't really know that I have damaged my riding, my karma, and my life, by having a 75 mm stem, and that I must be possessed by the devil to think that everything is ok.


Refer back to your quote in post 361.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Steve you're obviously talking about your current bike, in which case do what ever feels right to keep you comfortable and smilin.

BUT, if you were shopping for a new 2016 bike and needed to go to a 75mm stem to get comfortable on that frame, I'd say you should be looking at going up a size to keep the stem length down (or looking for a frame with better geometry, but that's another can-o-worms!) and that's what I meant by "no justification for long stems on modern trail bikes".


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Steve, what bike do you have? That kind of trails do you ride?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Steve, what bike do you have? That kind of trails do you ride?


Tallboy LT in Colorado.

I was in between sizes, and the medium felt way better to me than the large. Lower stack, better stand over.

Now you would probably argue that I should have found a different brand, that would give me the lower stack and stand over, and have enough reach that could use a shorter stem.

But my point is, I don't care about a shorter stem. When we are talking about modern geometry, I have no problem differentiating between a 135mm and a 50 mm stem. The points made in this thread are valid. But the difference between a 60 and a 75? For me that is trivia.

As for type of riding, I ride for exercise, nature, and exploration. I enjoy downhills of course, but I'm not speed oriented. I think there are a lot of people like me, and there are a lot of people who aren't like me that that think that everyone should be thinking like they do. 

A final note. 75 mm is still a short stem. This idea that stems should be 35-50 is a very new one, (along with steep STA and long reach philosophy), and implies that some major bike manufacturers, even with their 2016 designs, don't know how to properly design a mountain bike. I disagree. I think there are a lot of great bikes out there, including my own. The type of geometry we are talking about may become the universal norm in the future, but its not yet. Even if it does, I don't see it as any more important (to me) than the industries decision on on the "best" wheel size.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Flucod said:


> Oh the horror! I have a 90mm stem, I should have bought a XL bike wear my nutz hit the top tube and I can barely get on it so I can run a 50mm stem. Sarc off!


David was talking about the new geometry...
Of course some designs will prohibit sizing up for the reasons you mentioned...

The new geo bike will have TT low enough to prevent your goodies hitting it. ST short enough to be able run a 150mm dropper. TT & reach long enough to be able to run a short stem. CS short enough to keep the bike agile and help the WB with the longer front centre.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Cheers Jazzanova, that's exactly what I meant. Obviously it's not going to work for everyone, some people have short legs or long arms (or in Flucod's case enormous testicles that can't be contained and smash the top tube regularly), but I still agree with the Transition guys statement and design principles as a general guideline to how the modern trail bike should be shaped.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

They're not enormous. They're swollen from his BF constantly kicking him in the ball sack. Haha!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Wow, that Talboy LT is short & high and I would consider it a capable XC bike IME a 15mm change if stem length is noticeable and significant. I agree with what was written in the Transition article. Yes they are opinionated, but I have had a wide variety of bikes and my own experiences have led me to the same general conclusions. This 57 year old man still likes to go fast down hill so my bike excels at that but is also a great all rounder.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm seeing a bad trend here. People are putting short stems on bikes not designed for short stems or not designed for their particular fit with a short stem, just to get on the short stem bandwagon. If you are going to use a short stem, the bike should be designed for a short stem and the bike should fit you properly with a short stem. I wouldn't take my 15 year old bike designed for a 120mm stem and slap a 50mm stem on it. That would be just stupid.


That would be dumb. Getting a bike with a longer top tube and slacker geometry with a short stem - awesomeness.
That said, I think a lot of people would be well served taking a bike designed around a long stem and a taller rider, then putting a shorter stem on it - I'd argue this is way preferable to running the smaller frame.

The whole bike geometry is a zero-sum game, but one which involves a tremendous number of variables -- put as simply as possible, getting the correct bottom bracket to bar center measurement (actual pythagorean bike size -> SQRT(Reach^2 + (Stack + BB Drop)^2) ) through a longer top tube and shorter stem (resulting in a longer front center) comes with a tremendous set of benefits for riders that would like to either a) go fast more confidently, or b) go faster without exceeding the speed of the handlebars... and the downsides are really only prominent for elite level XC racing or for riders with poor technical climbing technique. Couple this with slacker head angles and more fork offset, the steering hasn't become much worse, and the stability at speed just keeps improving, not to mention more endo safety margin going off drops or handling steep stuff. Since my trail bikes and my skill level don't exist in a regime where fractions of a second are relevant, I'd much rather have a bike that is capable and ready to go fast than something designed around taking a far fitter rider across a finish line a tiny bit sooner. As far as the fun, flickable, maneuverable bikes, with less reliance on suspension for capability the older bikes relied on being nimble enough to pick their way through tricky sections, and the long stems were simply the butt-to-bars measurement band-aid required to make that work. Apply wagon wheels to the mix and some very cuddle-with-the-front-tire designs wind up emerging, but that doesn't mean those are better... just that they worked with the suspension designs, trails, and rider preferences at the time.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Wow, that Talboy LT is short & high and I would consider it a capable XC bike


Well Travis I had kind of assumed you were a somewhat reasonable guy, but now you have reclassified the Tallboy LT as an XC bike. You have jumped the shark.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

David R said:


> Cheers Jazzanova, that's exactly what I meant. Obviously it's not going to work for everyone, some people have short legs or long arms (or in Flucod's case enormous testicles that can't be contained and smash the top tube regularly), but I still agree with the Transition guys statement and design principles as a general guideline to how the modern trail bike should be shaped.





smilinsteve said:


> Well Travis I had kind of assumed you were a somewhat reasonable guy, but now you have reclassified the Tallboy LT as an XC bike. You have jumped the shark.


Yes, not a XC race bike, but I look at the angles more than travel and it looks to me like a capable XC bike. A steep XC race bike is a less capable XC bike in my head. Would I ride a TB on a DH track, not on purpose. XC here covers a wide spectrum which is why I differentiate race and capable. A bike like yours would be fun hear and a XC race bike would be more limited unless you're some kind of MTB savant. Slacken that HTA a bit, add reach, stubby stem, and then we are into all round MTB territory in my eyes.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

The TBLT is a great cautionary example when it comes to geometry figures. Sure, numbers are objective reference points, but with the sheer number of variables sometimes you just have to ride a bike. I did an A-B demo of a TBLT and a SB95 a few years ago and was surprised by how unimpressed I was by the Yeti and how much I liked the SC. It can be a very capable trail/AM bike - I know a few people who shred hard on them.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

tehllama said:


> That would be dumb. Getting a bike with a longer top tube and slacker geometry with a short stem - awesomeness.
> That said, I think a lot of people would be well served taking a bike designed around a long stem and a taller rider, then putting a shorter stem on it - I'd argue this is way preferable to running the smaller frame.
> 
> The whole bike geometry is a zero-sum game, but one which involves a tremendous number of variables -- put as simply as possible, getting the correct bottom bracket to bar center measurement (actual pythagorean bike size -> SQRT(Reach^2 + (Stack + BB Drop)^2) ) through a longer top tube and shorter stem (resulting in a longer front center) comes with a tremendous set of benefits for riders that would like to either a) go fast more confidently, or b) go faster without exceeding the speed of the handlebars... and the downsides are really only prominent for elite level XC racing or for riders with poor technical climbing technique. Couple this with slacker head angles and more fork offset, the steering hasn't become much worse, and the stability at speed just keeps improving, not to mention more endo safety margin going off drops or handling steep stuff. Since my trail bikes and my skill level don't exist in a regime where fractions of a second are relevant, I'd much rather have a bike that is capable and ready to go fast than something designed around taking a far fitter rider across a finish line a tiny bit sooner. As far as the fun, flickable, maneuverable bikes, with less reliance on suspension for capability the older bikes relied on being nimble enough to pick their way through tricky sections, and the long stems were simply the butt-to-bars measurement band-aid required to make that work. Apply wagon wheels to the mix and some very cuddle-with-the-front-tire designs wind up emerging, but that doesn't mean those are better... just that they worked with the suspension designs, trails, and rider preferences at the time.





Flucod said:


> Awesome post!


Yep, I agree. In fact the steering on today's bikes have become even better.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

A longer stem and a bar with more back sweep could put your hands in the same position relative to the steering axis as a shorter stem and a bar with less sweep. As such, handling would be the same.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> A longer stem and a bar with more back sweep could put your hands in the same position relative to the steering axis as a shorter stem and a bar with less sweep. As such, handling would be the same.


They only make bars with so much backsweep. So, if you want to go from a 110 to a 35mm stem, you're going to have to find a bar with 75mm of backsweep. That's gonna look good. And, no handling would not be the same, nor would your bike fit you anymore. You would still have a bike with a short front section, which makes it harder to keep weight balanced between the wheels. That's the whole idea of short stems. Lengthen the front section to make a bike more stable + change some angles so you don't lose any steering precision = a modern bike. There's nothing you can do to an old bike to make it like a modern bike.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

MikeDee said:


> A longer stem and a bar with more back sweep could put your hands in the same position relative to the steering axis as a shorter stem and a bar with less sweep. As such, handling would be the same.


or just do what I do. Run a short stem and tons of backsweep and basically have your front wheel in front of you.


----------



## rollertoaster (Jun 11, 2007)

I've been running 50mm or less stems for the better part of a decade. It's only recently that manufacturers have started making bikes with reach numbers that allow for a short stem. Up until recently I've just been suffering on anything but the downhills. I'm glad things are finally starting to change. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

If Transition is the last word on bike geometry, why aren't they dominating the segment?

If these ideas were the best thing ever, why aren't all the big manufacturers onto it?

Koop Aide's OK, love what you got, but don't hate others because they lack your level of Belief.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> If Transition is the last word on bike geometry, why aren't they dominating the segment?
> 
> If these ideas were the best thing ever, why aren't all the big manufacturers onto it?
> 
> Koop Aide's OK, love what you got, but don't hate others because they lack your level of Belief.


because of people unwilling to try new things.

I also think in the case of transition its going to take a ton of convincing that their bike do not pedal like crap anymore.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> because of people unwilling to try new things.
> 
> I also think in the case of transition its going to take a ton of convincing that their bike do not pedal like crap anymore.


It's true that Transitions used to pedal like a pogo stick. The old Preston and Bottlerocket were garbage for anything other than shuttling. A couple of my friends were sponsored riders/racers for them; strong dudes who could climb reasonably well in spite of their bikes. I used to cringe whenever I saw them stand on those bikes.

However, they've had a friend of mine as one of their designers for a few years now. While he likes to shred as much as your next PNWet bro-bra, he also has a background in XC racing. I'd see him most weekends, and at the Tuesday night short track races. I think that their bikes will keep on getting better at going up while retaining DH ability, while he's around.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> because of people unwilling to try new things.
> 
> I also think in the case of transition its going to take a ton of convincing that their bike do not pedal like crap anymore.


So anybody that has different preferences and/or rides on different trails that benefit from different geometry than yours just hasn't tried the new geometry? I must be an exception to the rule, then.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

pharmaboy said:


> If Transition is the last word on bike geometry, why aren't they dominating the segment?
> 
> If these ideas were the best thing ever, why aren't all the big manufacturers onto it?
> 
> Koop Aide's OK, love what you got, but don't hate others because they lack your level of Belief.


Big manufacturers are going long reach/TT too.
Check the Giant Reign for example.
Medium Reign is basically identical to large Santa Cruz.
Everyone is slowly going longer.
Nomad 3 is about 1 inch longer than Nomad 2. Ibis HD and Ripley got a bit longer as well.
Many European brands already went long, Mondraker, Canyon...


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

MikeDee said:


> A longer stem and a bar with more back sweep could put your hands in the same position relative to the steering axis as a shorter stem and a bar with less sweep. As such, handling would be the same.


Absolutely true. For a 750 mm bar, 9 degree back sweep puts the hands farther back 27 mm compared to a 5 degree backsweep. To have the same hand position you need to increase the stem length. The two different set ups will handle the same. The position of the hands is what matters; the stem bar configuration that gets your hands to that position doesn't matter.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Longer stem and/or wider bars will slow down steering, and has more to do with the bike's handling characteristics 
Whereas hand position can still have an effect on handling, it has more to do with fit.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

theMeat said:


> Longer stem and/or wider bars will slow down steering, and has more to do with the bike's handling characteristics
> Whereas hand position can still have an effect on handling, it has more to do with fit.


slows down output, but speeds up input. It far easier to keep a short stem, wide handlebar, long front center bike on track then is the "old" geo.

the new transitions are great BTW. They are bike meant to have fun on. It would be cool to see their geo applied to 24 ish lb 4 inch travel bike to see how good of an XC bike it would be.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

theMeat said:


> Longer stem and/or wider bars will slow down steering, and has more to do with the bike's handling characteristics
> Whereas hand position can still have an effect on handling, it has more to do with fit.


a 75 mm stem combined with a bar that has 75 mm of back sweep will have the same handling as a 50mm stem combined with a bar that has 50 mm in back sweep.

The only difference is the angle of the wrist caused by the bar angle.

You can't separate hand position from stem and bar. That is how your hands get there.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

As usual, I didn't bother to read all these pages of replies.

My Titus came with really short stem and I couldn't get up a hill with it until I ended up with a 120 mm stem.

My new Devinci has a really short, maybe 50 mm, stem and climbs like a champ. It has a really weird upright riding position that I was sure would suck for climbing, but it's nothing but stellar on the steep climbs. Descends quite well too.

I think it's best to look at stem length in conjunction with frame design.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

manitou2200 said:


> Great another attack this time for my auto spell incorrect grammar.
> Like I said before dude, you need to chill, you can't attack everyone that doesn't agree with you. It makes you look like a tool!
> Now go sit in the corner.


Who attacked you for grammar? I "attacked" your post for being stupid. I couldn't care less if you think I look like a tool. I'd rather be a tool than an idiot. Also, I don't attack everyone that doesn't agree with me. I just call people out when they post incorrect information. In this thread, it's mostly you and richde spouting nonsense.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Who attacked you for grammar? I "attacked" your post for being stupid. I couldn't care less if you think I look like a tool. I'd rather be a tool than an idiot. Also, I don't attack everyone that doesn't agree with me. I just call people out when they post incorrect information. In this thread, it's mostly you and richde spouting nonsense.


There's no nonsense in my posts, excuse me but you just lack the knowledge and IQ to recognize this! You can do whatever the hell you want and flail about on your bike. I could really care less! You're not a tool, maybe the bag you carry them in but nothing more. Thank you!


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

"Looking for speed and comfort&#8230;our 29ers are the fastest, *best handling*, most durable, cross-country mountain bike you will ever own."

"The epitome of fast hardtails, the Pro 29 is our premium race bike with a proven *geometry ideal for tight and twisty single track*."

Ya, it's a lot of marketing hype, but Lynskey is still running 100mm stems stock on their bikes. Not good for DH, but if the bikes geo is designed for longer stems then I agree it works for great handling on "tight and twisty single tracks". I have bikes with short stems/wide bars and bikes with long stems/narrow bars and both shred at what they are designed for.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Which would you rather ride, both FS trail/AM bikes (68-69 HA, 5" travel, 16.9" CS, big wheels, and other typical geo figures, assuming the distance from seat to grips is adjusted by seatpost offset and saddle fore/aft):

Bike A) with 100mm stem and 740mm bars
Bike B) with 50mm stem and 560mm bars



smilinsteve said:


> a 75 mm stem combined with a bar that has 75 mm of back sweep will have the same handling as a 50mm stem combined with a bar that has 50 mm in back sweep.
> 
> The only difference is the angle of the wrist caused by the bar angle.
> 
> You can't separate hand position from stem and bar. That is how your hands get there.


Apparently you chose to neglect the leverage ratio and the hand path through the handlebar's travel. :lol:

Also, someone please explain in detail how short stems improve steering accuracy/precision please (ex. same handlebar width, 35mm vs 70mm stem).


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Which would you rather ride, both FS trail/AM bikes (68-69 HA, 5" travel, 16.9" CS, big wheels, and other typical geo figures, assuming the distance from seat to grips is adjusted by seatpost offset and saddle fore/aft):
> 
> Bike A) with 100mm stem and 740mm bars
> Bike B) with 50mm stem and 560mm bars


On an AM bike? Neither, but if I had to choose I would go with 100mm stem and 740mm bars (although the backsweep and seat angle would be important factors as well). I am 6'4 with wide shoulders and a big wing span so the narrow bars with a short stem would be really awkward. Also, 740mm bars don't really spread my arms out since I have very wide shoulders so with the 740mm bars I would end up more upright vs someone with narrower shoulders even with the 100mm stem.



Varaxis said:


> Also, someone please explain in detail how short stems improve steering accuracy/precision please (ex. same handlebar width, 35mm vs 70mm stem).


This doesn't make sense to me either. I run short stem on my AM bike so I don't endo as easily on steep terrain and I run wide bars for more leverage and stability in the chunk and loose rocks. If I am not riding steep, chunky or loose then I prefer a longer stem and narrower bar for better, more controlled handling. Short stem and wide bars can get twitchy on twisty slower single tracks and I find my self over correcting a lot with that set up unless I am at speed.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> Apparently you chose to neglect the leverage ratio and the hand path through the handlebar's travel. :lol:


The leverage and the hand path are identical in the 2 cases I described. The leverage is calculated from the straight line distance from your hand to the center of the headset. The path the bar took to get there makes no difference. You could tie a knot in the bar, or send it to the moon and back. If it puts your hand in the same place it doesn't matter. 
The same is true with hand height. You can achieve the same hand position numerous ways, with headset spacers, riser bars, angled stems etc. Any way you do it achieves the same handling.

And the path of the hand is a perfect circle with the headset as the center. Again, the bar/stem configuration doesn't matter.



> Also, someone please explain in detail how short stems improve steering accuracy/precision please (ex. same handlebar width, 35mm vs 70mm stem).


They don't. Again the only thing that matters is the position of the hand in space relative to the steering axis. A wide bar increases the amount of hand movement needed for a given turn, but a short stem actually brings the hand closer to the steering axis.
The stem and bar are like the legs of a triangle and the hypotenuse is the straight line distance between hand and headset. The hypotenuse is what matters. Bar width has a much greater effect on changing the distance of the hand than the stem length does.

When people notice a steering difference from a short stem, mostly what they are noticing is the change in weight distribution and body position.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> The leverage and the hand path are identical in the 2 cases I described. The leverage is calculated from the straight line distance from your hand to the center of the headset. The path the bar took to get there makes no difference. You could tie a knot in the bar, or send it to the moon and back. If it puts your hand in the same place it doesn't matter.
> The same is true with hand height. You can achieve the same hand position numerous ways, with headset spacers, riser bars, angled stems etc. Any way you do it achieves the same handling.
> 
> And the path of the hand is a perfect circle with the headset as the center. Again, the bar/stem configuration doesn't matter.
> ...


Easy to illustrate with drop handlebars in graphics software, with drop portion parallel with the stem and extending as far as I like.










Confirmed your two examples and your claims that it's all about hand position in relation to the steering axis.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I bought some cheap stems off the internet to try different stem lengths with my new 720mm bars. I went from 580mm/105mm (bar/stem) 5 degree sweep, to an interim 650mm/100mm 9 degree, to a final 720/80mm 9 degree. I think I've settled on the final position. A 70mm stem caused comfort issues. Not sure I like the 720's over the 650's though, but I think I'll stick with it. Felt pretty good on today's ride. The 650s are going on my hardtail with a shorter stem there as well.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> The stem and bar are like the legs of a triangle and the hypotenuse is the straight line distance between hand and headset. The hypotenuse is what matters.


I'm sorry, but you can't use a word like 'hypotenuse' on here, you can totally 'f-off! ;0)


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

What's up with the position where the elbows are splayed out to the side like a praying mantis or a chicken flapping its wings or a construction worker running a jackhammer? Why aren't the elbows bent back instead? Is this the result of too short of a stem/ cramped position?


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

U


smilinsteve said:


> The leverage and the hand path are identical in the 2 cases I described. The leverage is calculated from the straight line distance from your hand to the center of the headset. The path the bar took to get there makes no difference. You could tie a knot in the bar, or send it to the moon and back. If it puts your hand in the same place it doesn't matter.
> The same is true with hand height. You can achieve the same hand position numerous ways, with headset spacers, riser bars, angled stems etc. Any way you do it achieves the same handling.
> 
> And the path of the hand is a perfect circle with the headset as the center. Again, the bar/stem configuration doesn't matter.
> ...


Look dude, this thread would never get anywhere if we relied on logic and reason.

Short stems make me ride like Gwynn on my sic enduro machine


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

MikeDee said:


> What's up with the position where the elbows are splayed out to the side like a praying mantis or a chicken flapping its wings.? Why aren't the elbows bent back instead? Is this the result of too short of a stem/ cramped position?


Elbows back and you're relying mostly on the arm muscles alone to hold yourself on the bike and move it around. Elbows out engages the shoulder, chest, and back muscles which are much stronger and allow you to be far more dynamic on the bike and soak up much larger impacts.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

aerius said:


> Elbows back and you're relying mostly on the arm muscles alone to hold yourself on the bike and move it around. Elbows out engages the shoulder, chest, and back muscles which are much stronger and allow you to be far more dynamic on the bike and soak up much larger impacts.


Makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

MikeDee said:


> What's up with the position where the elbows are splayed out to the side like a praying mantis or a chicken flapping its wings or a construction worker running a jackhammer? Why aren't the elbows bent back instead? Is this the result of too short of a stem/ cramped position?


Because just dropping your elbows might be uncomfortable due to handlebar geo (back and upsweep) being derpy-derp. It just happens that with a certain width bar, the popular geo everyone's copying is more comfy in that position. On my 740mm 9x5 bar, the most comfortable position is having the elbows significantly above and behind it, kind of boxing my head in.

I have a commuter bike with narrow flat bars that I can just drop my elbows with, which acts like passive suspension, allowing me to control the front without even thinking about unweighing it over bumps.

I'm not sure which is better according to the experts, but on my 29er my body wants to be like the top example, while a number of other external factors are telling me to be like the bottom example:



















Greg Minnaar is guilty of dropping elbows, which is what I prefer to use on my commuter bike, at least when I'm just cruising over small bumps (I stand up taller for bigger impacts):










What position is ideal probably is different for each person and each circumstance, likely having a lot to do with body proportions in relation to bike fit. If I were testing for fit on a mtn bike, I'd try to get the fit to make it so I'd be comfortable with my forearms 45 degrees in relation to the ground's slope. For me, that would mean no long travel 29ers, since the front ends are way too high to comfortably be in that position. I like my shoulders to be more relaxed, and leave its duty to my core, so I can have a relatively light touch on the bars. Lee McCormack's images look the most convincing to me:


































Pick your stem length to achieve the above most comfortably?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Holy crap, I had no idea that riding a bike was so complicated!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Mookie said:


> Holy crap, I had no idea that riding a bike was so complicated!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Varaxis said:


>


would be harder to learn if you have been riding a bike forever.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm happy to see my thread has reached 17 pages and managed to somehow bring the backwards bike into the discussion. Much fun.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I think more up-sweep on a bar forces the elbows out. When I bought my bike, the shop set up the flat bar pointing up, so the backsweep became upsweep. They are a downhill oriented shop and that's how they like it, but I switched it to the normal orientation.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


>


Heals :lol:


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I think more up-sweep on a bar forces the elbows out. When I bought my bike, the shop set up the flat bar pointing up, so the backsweep became upsweep. They are a downhill oriented shop and that's how they like it, but I switched it to the normal orientation.


Most people put the backs weep to low. It should follow a line from your hands up through your shoulders.



smilinsteve said:


> Heals :lol:


Hey, my favorite position!


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> Good position, weight over bottom bracket, eyes looking ahead, looks like she is attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


15 char


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Thustlewhumber said:


> Always be like Lee. Unless you can be a unicorn, then always be a unicorn.
> 
> Pick your stem length to achieve the above most comfortably?
> NONONONO!!! Stem length has EVERYTHING to do with steering, and NOTHING to do with fit! Slide your seat back or get a larger bike, don't jack with your short stem/long handlebar combo 15 char


Looks like Lee is running at least a 100mm stem in this pic here if not more considering the bars backsweep. Maybe he uses different stem lengths for different types of riding. Or maybe he chooses stem length to acheive the best position most comfortably. I wonder if there is something to that.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

singletrackmack said:


> Looks like Lee is running at least a 100mm stem in this pic here if not more considering the bars backsweep. Maybe he uses different stem lengths for different types of riding. Or maybe he chooses stem length to acheive the best position most comfortably. I wonder if there is something to that.
> 
> View attachment 1010438


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

Lee Likes Bikes

Since I critiqued the other photos, I will go ahead and critique my own:







This is 3 pics overlayed onto each other. I am running a dropper to get the seat out of my way.

The first image you can see how my stance is: knees bent, weight driving through bottom bracket, elbows are actually out, but not completely "up and out", and I am looking where I want to go.

The second image you can see I am looking towards the exit of the ramp, fingers covering my brake levers (just in case). It looks like I raised up a bit, but I am actually pushing the bike slightly against the ramp so that the force makes my bike stick a bit better. My weight is still all in the bottom bracket, and I am starting to lean the bike.

The third image shows I am coming back down into position to absorb the impact of coming off the ramp. You can see my 40mm stem and 810mm bars keep me in a good stance. You can also see my back isn't completely horizontal, but I'm low enough with the seat dropped that it doesn't matter. My hips and body are turning towards the exit of the ramp.

If I had a, say, 100mm stem on there, it would be hard for me to maintain weight on my bottom bracket because the long stem would naturally make me put more weight on the front wheel. It would also move my arms further forward, which would move my body further forward, which would mean I would be trying to muscle my way through this ramp instead of driving my weight through my bottom bracket.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Another proponent of the short stem + long reach - Nikolai.
Forward geometry plus. 
77 or 77.7 degree ST
Looong reach 485mm for the smallest size. This is size XL with many other brands using the conventional geometry.

Over 126mm WB for medium, which they call long. Large is called longer and xl the longest...
http://shop.nicolai.net/index.php/ion-gpi.html

Some riding impressions here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=986181
Nicolai GPI/Geometron Ride/Info/Pics


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jazzanova said:


> That pucture is maybe a decade old... I hoghly dpubt he is using a 100mm stem these days..


That photo is from 2012, so still within the short stem/ wide bar era. Seems to me that he promotes different set ups for different types of riding which can be seen in this diagram from him. I completely agree with this. Longer stem for xc, shorter stem for AM. That's how my bikes are set up.









2015 large Spec Enduro comes stock with a 50mm stem while a large spec stumpy HT comes stock with a 100mm stem.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Quick question, thustlewumber: How does sliding the seat back help with getting a good attack position, with the elbows bent comfortably (and shoulders more relaxed), considering the attack position is out of the saddle? Don't you mean choose a frame with long reach to allow a short stem? Sliding the seat back is akin to slacking out your seat tube angle. A larger bike usually comes with a longer headtube and would raise the bar height.

I was curious about the photo's age, so I looked up Lee's bike. Lee's bike is a 2008 model in that pic. Reach was really long back in that era of bikes (which earned 4.5/5 stars in a review, being called better than an Enduro in another).


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Thustlewhumber said:


> If I had a, say, 100mm stem on there, it would be hard for me to maintain weight on my bottom bracket because the long stem would naturally make me put more weight on the front wheel. It would also move my arms further forward, which would move my body further forward, which would mean I would be trying to muscle my way through this ramp instead of driving my weight through my bottom bracket.


If you had a longer stem you'd have a shorter top tube. You'd probably need more of a weight shift toward the back to lighten the front and keep weight over the bottom bracket. Not a huge deal.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "why the hell are stems so long" forum. 

Oh wait we don't have a stem forum yet. Give it some time I'm sure it's in the pipeline.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Varaxis said:


> Because just dropping your elbows might be uncomfortable due to handlebar geo (back and upsweep) being derpy-derp. It just happens that with a certain width bar, the popular geo everyone's copying is more comfy in that position. On my 740mm 9x5 bar, the most comfortable position is having the elbows significantly above and behind it, kind of boxing my head in.
> 
> I have a commuter bike with narrow flat bars that I can just drop my elbows with, which acts like passive suspension, allowing me to control the front without even thinking about unweighing it over bumps.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your take on the first photo of this post. She is crouched too forward with her chin just inches from the bars.

A dentists dream position. :yikes:

If she raised up a bit with her arms more straight and elbows slightly bent then she'd be an impressive sight.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I disagree with your take on the first photo of this post. She is crouched too forward with her chin just inches from the bars.
> 
> A dentists dream position. :yikes:
> 
> ...


This whole thread should be in either the components or riding technique forum.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

singletrackmack said:


> That photo is from 2012, so still within the short stem/ wide bar era. Seems to me that he promotes different set ups for different types of riding which can be seen in this diagram from him. I completely agree with this. Longer stem for xc, shorter stem for AM. That's how my bikes are set up.
> 
> View attachment 1010537
> 
> ...


What's missing here is that a longer top tube coupled with shorter total stack combination (a longer frame for the XC option) would yield that exact same position desired, with better steering precision - it just adds a fraction of a pound to make that longer, and customers buying those bikes tend to want the easiest to weight front end and be fine with worse steering (arguably irrelevant when really fast rolling tires are specced).

The forgotten exception case is how confident most buyers feel on flat loose turns - the short top tube long stem combination is going to yield far better front traction with the same tire combination for somebody not aggressively adjusting weight distribution through them, and for anybody accustomed to riding that type of bike the longer front center options are going to feel like there is no traction in any situation... which is only accurate for riders camping out towards the back without modulating bar pressure.

Then again, I'm running a 90mm stem on my XC hardtail (22" Framed Diamondback Overdrive Carbon), just to hit the reach figure I need to be comfortable - I'd probably need to pick up a custom frame or similar setup (basically holding out for a Canfield EPO in XL - with a >25" top tube) in order to actually get a proper handling bike for that application.

I still think slightly longer stems for XC bikes make a lot of sense, but longer front center (slacker HTA plus longer top tubes) designs would handle and perform better, and running stems in the 55-80mm range is probably the sweet spot for going fast everywhere.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> I was curious about the photo's age, so I looked up Lee's bike. Lee's bike is a 2008 model in that pic. Reach was really long back in that era of bikes (which earned 4.5/5 stars in a review, being called better than an Enduro in another).


Thanks, couldn't tell the age of the photo, but it was used in an post from him in 2012 in response to a question titled "SHORT STEM LEADS TO AWKWARD POSITION". Lee did suggest in his response that "In general, a shorter cockpit improves range of motion and thus, handling" which I find true for AM riding and set my AM bike up that way. Strange he used this picture with what looks to be a 100m stem to show how to get into position for seated power.

Date is at the bottom of the page:


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I had the privilege or the curse of riding a 1990 Cannondale in near original condition yesterday...

It was horrifying!

I have to say the frame was a bit big for me, so that probably didn't help but I felt like my weight was WAY far forward, like I was literally canted toward the front wheel.

My normal bike is a Surly Karate Monkey with a 90mm stem and 720mm bars, and my geometry is not exactly slack... but this was an eye opener at how much different bikes are these days.

Really the bike would have been great if the stem were up higher and shorter and the bars were wider. Those narrow bars feel super sketchy to me now that I'm used to wider ones.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

After my ride the other day I was thinking about how much I had enjoyed the few near vertical drops on the trail. Places where I'm pointed almost straight down and both wheels come of the ground briefly. At 57, I'm not one to go for big jumps and drops but these are on a fun "XC" trail we are blessed with. My bike, stubby stem and all is very confidence inspiring and allows me to enjoy all parts of the ride.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> I rode my cross bike on some trails the other day and had a blast. It made the tech sections tougher which was great, but to listen to most of you it could not be done because it had a 110mm stem with 42cm wide bars AND no dropper!


would love to see your tech sections. Curious where do you ride?

I agree cross bike on singletrack is great fun though(my cross bike is even a SS...it does have disc brakes and 40c tires though) but there is no way I could ride the most technical trails that I ride on even my XC MTB on a cross bike, let alone the trouble me 2 all mountain bikes get me into.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

There are always the guys with trials savant skills who can ride anything on a cross bike. I would be hiking or dead.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I disagree with your take on the first photo of this post. She is crouched too forward with her chin just inches from the bars.
> 
> A dentists dream position. :yikes:
> 
> If she raised up a bit with her arms more straight and elbows slightly bent then she'd be an impressive sight.


There's 1 ft of clearance, at least, and the bars are high. It's what you call an aggressive position, one that is committed to the high speed. Also, the longer the front center is, the less the front pitches up on a bump; judging by how far the wheel is from her forward foot, that's a proper slacked out bike.

See Manon Carpenter with similar style:










Heck, most of Aaron Gwin's action photos has him in that position:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aaron+gwin+fast+aggressive&tbm=isch


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Doesn't using the stances if downhill riders downhilling simply prove the point that short stems and that stance are for a different category of riding?

Nino schurter seemed to do alright on the jumps last weekend with a 90mm -17 degree or so stem......


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

about three years ago, I had a 100mm stem and a 660 mm flat bar that seemed to work on my medium 29er hardtail. then as the wide bars/short stem started to gain momentum, I went with it. 710mm flat bars with a 80mm stem, then 760mm risers with a 60mm stem. I already cut down the risers to 720mm and I am thinking the 60mm stem is excessively short for my riding style. I also have my stem pointed down, negating the riser bars. I think it needs to go lower because I cannot ever use my smallest cog without doing an uphill wheelie.

I recall riding BMX before I started mountain biking and seeing everyone who was riding huge bars, knobby tires, and no pegs at the skatepartk because the "dirt jumper" look was in, which gave way to incredibly heavy bikes with tiny handlebars, four pegs, and no brakes on kids' bike who could not bunnyhop high enough to grind anything and lacked any sort of bike control to justify riding brakeless, which eventually gave way to even bigger, handlebars, flimsy lightweight bikes, and freecoasters.

likewise, track bikes are great for racing on a velodrome, and bike messengers started using them for work in crowded cities for their simplicity. suddenly hipsters started riding "fixies," despite the fact that those bikes evolved to that state for very specific reasons.

I digress, but every side of cycling is subject to blindly following trends.

every mountain biker has 1x drivetrains, three foot-wide riser handlebars with tiny stems, massive tires, etc- stuff that evolved from gravity-oriented riding where you spend a lot of time going down hills very fast. that suits some, but not everyone who is adopting this style of bike setup, myself included.

I am going to make a move back toward traditional XC because that is the way I ride and my bike was designed. it's a steep-angled, steel hardtail with a 100mm air fork that I ride at moderate speeds for long periods over relatively moderate terrain with a few long hills and lots of narrowly spaced trees and more rocks than dirt most of the time, which makes me favor slow-speed maneuvering over high-speed stability. it's not a slacked-out, long travel downhill motobike, and has no business being equipped like it is. some of the new aspects of bikes will benefit, and others will not. ride what works for you, experiment with new trends, then jettison the ones that don't help your riding style.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

pharmaboy said:


> Doesn't using the stances if downhill riders downhilling simply prove the point that short stems and that stance are for a different category of riding?
> 
> Nino schurter seemed to do alright on the jumps last weekend with a 90mm -17 degree or so stem......


No, short stems and wide bars can and do work well in all round riding. Nino can jump in spite of his setup, not because of it. The best climber I know, who can get up stuff I have trouble walking has a 35mm stem. This doesn't prove much except that climbing can be done well with a 35mm stem.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

singletrackmack said:


> . Lee did suggest in his response that "In general, a shorter cockpit improves range of motion and thus, handling" which I find true for AM riding and set my AM bike up that way.
> 
> View attachment 1010593


What exactly is AM riding?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Let me google that for you


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

LittleBitey said:


> What exactly is AM riding?


It's when you ride all of the mountains.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Circlip said:


> It's when you ride all of the mountains.


Forst you need a map of all the trails in the forest.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mack_turtle said:


> Forst you need a map of all the trails in the forest.


RIGHT! By they way, does anyone have one I could borrow?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

pharmaboy said:


> Doesn't using the stances if downhill riders downhilling simply prove the point that short stems and that stance are for a different category of riding?
> 
> Nino schurter seemed to do alright on the jumps last weekend with a 90mm -17 degree or so stem......


They just look extreme because they're usually on steep terrain, their CG is still over the BB, just that the bike is angled steeply downwards. On level ground the same stance would put their nose over the stem, which is a pretty standard attack position.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

Circlip said:


> It's when you ride all of the mountains.


So what if I only am able to ride *some* of the mountains. SM? And then what stem. WHAT STEM!?!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

LittleBitey said:


> So what if I only am able to ride *some* of the mountains. SM? And then what stem. WHAT STEM!?!


If you aren't able to ride them all, then you should stop mountain biking altogether and henceforth will not need to concern yourself with the black art of proper stem length selection.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> RIGHT! By they way, does anyone have one I could borrow?


Sent link to you via PM. Just send it back to me when you have finished riding the forest.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

pharmaboy said:


> Doesn't using the stances if downhill riders downhilling simply prove the point that short stems and that stance are for a different category of riding?
> 
> Nino schurter seemed to do alright on the jumps last weekend with a 90mm -17 degree or so stem......


He's 5' 8" and runs a relatively small bike. He looks huge on it...

https://www.google.com/search?q=nino+schurter+action&tbm=isch


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

LittleBitey said:


> So what if I only am able to ride *some* of the mountains. SM? And then what stem. WHAT STEM!?!


I think the big manufacturers next line of bikes should be the SM category, with a wishy washy stem that has no clear length to it, like a quantum particle.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I think the big manufacturers next line of bikes should be the SM category, with a wishy washy stem that has no clear length to it, like a quantum particle.


Or the front part of the stem could be on a spring-loaded drawstring (I knew there was something else we could do with Boa laces...) so that you can just pull it away from the steerer clamp to dynamically adjust the length of the stem on the fly for different sections of trail.

(reaching around to pat myself on the back now for this stroke of genius)


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Someone should tell him that doing this on an XC hardtail goes against all the rules of the MTBR resident geniuses.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Someone should tell him that doing this on an XC hardtail goes against all the rules of the MTBR resident geniuses.


Imagine how many more races he could have won if he wasn't so resistant to trying new school bike setup.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

LittleBitey said:


> What exactly is AM riding?


It's what you call yourself when you are too unfit to enjoy riding across or up the mountain.

See #fullysic #enduro #gnar #middleagedman


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

LittleBitey said:


> What exactly is AM riding?


As others have pointed out AM stands for All Mountain. I assumed others on this site automatically know what AM stands for. The link below provided by Mackturtle does a good job of explaining what it is.



mack_turtle said:


> Let me google that for you


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Someone should tell him that doing this on an XC hardtail goes against all the rules of the MTBR resident geniuses.


Go ahead and set up your bike like that and report back on the awesomeness you find.

Nino's skill allows him to ride a bike so unsuitable for anything other than climbing.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Flucod said:


> I rode my cross bike on some trails the other day and had a blast. It made the tech sections tougher which was great, but to listen to most of you it could not be done because it had a 110mm stem with 42cm wide bars AND no dropper!


So one minute you're telling us your long-stemmed cross bike made riding "tougher", then in the next breath you're mocking those who are saying short stems are better for most mountain biking?

:skep:


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> Well if you worked on your skills instead of always counting on current tech then you probably could, Learn to ride brah!


curious where do you ride? maybe you are close enough to teach me how to ride better?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

David R said:


> So one minute you're telling us your long-stemmed cross bike made riding "tougher", then in the next breath you're mocking those who are saying short stems are better for most mountain biking?
> 
> :skep:


I'm sure he's referring to the cross bike on MTB terrain, regardless on the stem length.

Just like riding a road bike in a cross race, a DH bike in a 4x race, etc.

Not the ideal tool for the job.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

singletrackmack said:


> As others have pointed out AM stands for All Mountain. I assumed others on this site automatically know what AM stands for. The link below provided by Mackturtle does a good job of explaining what it is.


Your sarcasm meter is low on fuel, but Ill bite:

The irony of Mr. Mackturtle's search results is that "All Mountain" describes a type of bike (albeit several results down the page) but does very little to describe what actual riding should take place. I find categories funny, thats all. Skillsets often determine what can or cannot be ridden, irregardlessly of equipment. This, however, has been discussed ad nauseam. I know what the acronym means, I just think it has little meaning. Folks that say "rocky", "rooty", "technical", "drops", "road", etc. are much more descriptive and apropos.

Id really like to see what terrain is often referred to as "all mountain" from some posters on this site, but I am glad your <50 mm stem keeps you safe and on the gnar.

I'll continue to ride like a pvussy. Carry on.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

mack_turtle said:


> Let me google that for you


So I should be saying "all mountain mountain biking" when talking to my brahs? Seems redundant but okey doke.

Sarcasm is fun eh?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

First, wtf is a "brah". Is it something you guys are wearing? If so why do you need it? Where do you get them?

Second, "all mountain" is another term that is essentially meaningless, like technical. It's just mountain biking.

Third, if any of you tools could ride like Nino, you'd be getting paid for it.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> First, wtf is a "brah". Is it something you guys are wearing? If so why do you need it? Where do you get them?
> 
> Second, "all mountain" is another term that is essentially meaningless, like technical. It's just mountain biking.
> 
> Third, if any of you tools could ride like Nino, you'd be getting paid for it.


It's Bra, which is my contribution to the Urban Dictionary:
Urban Dictionary: bra


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Second, "all mountain" is another term that is essentially meaningless, like technical. It's just mountain biking.


And Formula 1 racing is just driving a car.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> And Formula 1 racing is just driving a car.


F1 is badass! Go Daniel Ricciardo!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> And Formula 1 racing is just driving a car.


Only an elite group comprised of the best drivers in the world can compete in Formula 1 racing, are you placing "all mountain riders" in that category? I have seen drivers on the street who seem to think they're racing F-1 though.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

DR is a badass, wouldn't matter what he's driving... then again most of those guys (probably even crashtor) could outdrive 99.9% of the population in an inferior car. The actual excitement from F1 is hit or miss, but it is somewhat telling how flexible the underlying chassis is [look at how many parts will get changed between Monza and Singapore].

Still has some relevant analogies - when Lotus had vastly superior ground effects on their '86 car, they had a good chunk of the garage and media convinced it was somehow tied to a trick differential, and those guys weren't exactly dumb. Consider now how much of a red herring a lot of these edge discussions are - the actual stem length itself on a properly fitted bike is a derivative measurement, not a primary one. For somebody on an already properly fitting bike to mount a shorter stem is probably bad - somebody moving to a used bike designed around somebody with a longer torso putting a shorter stem on it should actually work pretty well, and to be honest the new-school forward geometry is better for going fast downhill, and gives up very little (if anything) when going back up.

Another detail I've gotten to considering is how relevant STA is - lengthening the front center and tightening the rear center should generally unweight the front (relatively speaking), but introduce a steeper STA for pedaling position that that more or less fixes itself, provided the added front center is happening from mostly top tube (not just adding slackness)... but introduce a dropper on the downhill segments where the front takes more weight anyway (STA becomes irrelevant) and the result is better steering due to the short stem, the same BB-crown distance for proper fit going downhill, and a much easier to place rear wheel that is more directly under the rider. With good forks mounted up, this is a faster combination downhill.

So, I'm actually revising my answer. Long stems make sense on a bike without a dropper post. With a dropper post, they make less sense.
Drop the seat, set a more aggressive attack position (one enabled by more precise steering from a shorter stem) and everything works well - importantly the dropper means that really steep seat tubes also work, which fixes much of the front/rear weight bias when climbing.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

richde said:


> Nino's skill allows him to ride a bike so unsuitable for anything other than climbing.


LOL that doesn't even make sense.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

LittleBitey said:


> Your sarcasm meter is low on fuel, but Ill bite...
> Id really like to see what terrain is often referred to as "all mountain" from some posters on this site, but I am glad your <50 mm stem keeps you safe and on the gnar....


Ya, sorry I got home late from a long day of work I didn't have the energy for well thought out sarcasm.



Travis Bickle said:


> Second, "all mountain" is another term that is essentially meaningless, like technical. It's just mountain biking.


I don't think the term is meaningless, just like I don't think the term DH or XC are meaningless. In the most simplistic terms, DH to me is a bike capable of going down only usually on steep rough terrain and not made for climbing back up. XC is a bike geared with very good pedaling made for flatter terrain with climbs and sections going down and some rough sections, but nothing really step on the way down. AM is a bike capable of going down steep rough terrain, but also capable of climbing to the top, not as good or as burley going down as a DH bike and not as good at pedaling or as light as an xc bike, but capable of both.

As far as what I consider AM: I use my AM bike when climbing about 3k to get to the top of MT Baldy to then take the TRT 7miles down and then climb 1k to Brockway pass and connect back to the TRT for a shorter 2 mile but very steep section of the TRT, then climb about 2k to get to the top of MT Watson to ride 6 miles down to Lake Tahoe via the TRT to the Grinder to Dirks Descent. These are old school trails that are black diamond rated with drops, rock gardens and chunky goodies all throughout with some new school berms on Dirks Descent. 50mm stem helps to prevent me from going over the bars and matched with 810mm bar helps to keep the front wheel pointed in the direction I want in rock gardens.

I use my xc bike on trails down near lake level where there is nothing too steep.

Another example, Dirty Harry: DH, Mr Toads: AM, Flume Trail: XC. This doesn't mean you can't ride an XC bike on Mr Toads, but a AM bike would be better suited.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> AM is a bike capable of going down steep rough terrain, but also capable of climbing to the top, not as good or as burley going down as a DH bike and not as good at pedaling or as light as an xc bike, but capable of both.


Differences to a "Trail" bike, "Enduro" bike, or the awesome and proprietary "Over Mountain" models from C-Dale? I mean, surely it would be very bad to be caught out on an All Mountain ride while riding an Enduro bike, or to try to ride Over Mountain on a Trail bike, or any other similar discrepancy that could lead to serious injury or death resulting from inappropriate bike selection, or at the very least putting one's eye out.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> And Formula 1 racing is just driving a car.


it is just driving a car at speed less then downforce. At speed that downforce comes into play its something entirely different. Learning to drive a Formula Altantic was one of the scariest cars (and most fun cars) I ever got to learn to drive.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

DH bikes are DH only, but everything else is on a scale. All mountain just means mountain biking and IMO a mtb that can't go up and down ain't much of a mtb.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Circlip said:


> Differences to a "Trail" bike, "Enduro" bike, or the awesome and proprietary "Over Mountain" models from C-Dale? I mean, surely it would be very bad to be caught out on an All Mountain ride while riding an Enduro bike, or to try to ride Over Mountain on a Trail bike, or any other similar discrepancy that could lead to serious injury or death resulting from inappropriate bike selection, or at the very least putting one's eye out.


Enduro, trail, and AM and I guess over mountain are just different terms to describe the same style bike. To me there are 3 types, DH, AM (Enduro or trail) and XC.



Travis Bickle said:


> DH bikes are DH only, but everything else is on a scale. All mountain just means mountain biking and IMO a mtb that can't go up and down ain't much of a mtb.


Yes, but an XC bike is generally built lighter, has less travel and a steep HT angle so not ideal for steep or extended down hills, drops or jumps, while an AM bike is generally built stronger, has longer travel and a slack HT angle so better suited for extended steep downhills, drops and jumps. Not saying you can't ride the XC bike on steep terrain with drops and jumps or the AM bike on flatter terrain, just that there is a bike better suited for those types of trails.

So, of coarse everything is on a scale, but these terms DH, AM and XC are there to simply describe what part of the scale your on.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> DH bikes are DH only, but everything else is on a scale. All mountain just means mountain biking and IMO a mtb that can't go up and down ain't much of a mtb.


In theory every bike can go "down", because gravity. It still is, and will be, *mostly* about the dude/lady piloting the steed.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Only an elite group comprised of the best drivers in the world can compete in Formula 1 racing, are you placing "all mountain riders" in that category? I have seen drivers on the street who seem to think they're racing F-1 though.


No, but I am saying Formula 1 requires a different skill set than, say, Baja racing.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> DH bikes are DH only, but everything else is on a scale. All mountain just means mountain biking and IMO a mtb that can't go up and down ain't much of a mtb.


Yeah, but it also means jumps, drops, and more technical terrain than the average trail ride contains. I agree that in the old days mountain bikes were mountain bikes, but there is a definite difference between a trail bike and all-mountain bike.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Well, it's incredibly difficult to climb on a DH bike so it is DH only in my book. What about a Canfield Bros EPO. Light enough for non pro XC racing, but capable of an enduro race as well. No reason there can't be a light bike these days with geometry that can handle almost everything well.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yeah, but it also means jumps, drops, and more technical terrain than the average trail ride contains. I agree that in the old days mountain bikes were mountain bikes, but there is a definite difference between a trail bike and all-mountain bike.


An inch?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> An inch?


At least 4 or 5 inches. On the shorts and hem line of the jersey that is.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Bike meanings:

Downhill : a bike ridden by the young and stupid, and a bike owned by men who remember being young and stupid. Type of bike most often found on Craigslist - "2 runs , not getting used, $2k or swap for Moto "

Enduro : 6" of travel, ridden by guys who own full face helmets, but who don't have any friends to shuttle with or the balls to ride a downhill track (obese and timid)

All Mountain - 5" travel ridden by guys who buy helmets with the clip of face guard aka bell super 2. They wear troy lee designs stuff, a backpack with lots of tools that they can't operate. (Overweight drinkers)

Trail bike - 4.9" of travel ridden by guys who don't lust after the latest colour or material, but have upgraded to shimano brakes. (Unfit and average weight)

XC - 4" of travel ridden by guys who have had the others but have faced up to the fact that the bike doesn't make the rider the rider makes the bike . Wears shorts over Lycra to hide their love handles - fit but average

hard tail - see masochists in lycra
Single speed - see hipster masochists (de branded branded gear)

Over mountain - owned by marketing professionals who appreciate irony


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

More like durability and geometry differences, although an inch of travel can drastically change the feel of a bike. Go hit up some consistent shuttle runs on a Trek Fuel and see how long it lasts compared to a Trek Slash, for example. Both will go up and down well enough, but if you can't see the difference, then it's pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

Why do people have such a difficult time understanding that different bikes do different things better than others? If that wasn't true, we'd still all be riding 1986 Specialized Stumpjumpers. Pharmaboy summed it up pretty well..


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Dude, get a sense of humour, stat!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I laughed at your previous post... It's getting too difficult to decipher the sarcasm from the clueless around here..


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I laughed at your previous post... It's getting too difficult to decipher the sarcasm from the clueless around here..


Yeah sorry, I tend to read linear thread, so context is lost sometimes

Anyway, once you get to 10 pages there needs to be the Joker law invoked - "why so serious".


----------



## phattruth (Apr 22, 2012)

I can't wait for the slacked out all mountain road bikes to come out sporting negative offset stems!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

phattruth said:


> I can't wait for the slacked out all mountain road bikes to come out sporting negative offset stems!


They already exist. They're called recumbents and they can climb mountain roads, albeit slower than a typical road racing bike, but descend waaaaay faster. The view's apparently nicer too, looking upwards at the sky and foliage, instead of the pavement.

Wonder what the road equivalent of a "trail bike" is. Maybe city bikes? More comfort often thanks to susp and/or fatter tires, less worry about durability, more capable on rougher terrain, optimized for routes that have less elevation change which tend to be closer to your doorstep, more emphasis on casual ride enjoyment, and less emphasis on fitness goals (ex. mileage and peak bagging).


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> They already exist. They're called recumbents and they can climb mountain roads, albeit slower than a typical road racing bike, but descend waaaaay faster.


I've put a lot of miles on a recumbent and did not find that to be true.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've put a lot of miles on a recumbent and did not find that to be true.


Specially designed recumbents with fairings and such can be really fast for flat, smooth speed record type stuff, I don't know that I'd want to try push one too hard down a steep, twisty mtn road though. :lol:


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Cool, can't wait for the follow up clip of a guy riding a freeride bike around a velodrome.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> curious where do you ride? maybe you are close enough to teach me how to ride better?


Your race results don't lie Matta. So Far Down the list. Beat by most of the teenies. Pretty sure you could take some pointers by most anyone riding along. 
Talk SOOOO MUCH about riding and bikes, but...oh no, you're terrible at riding them. Talk SO MUCH about trails and trail work...but ooopps...you don't do any work or build anything. You sir, are a huge Poser. Enjoy yourself. 
https://www.rootsandrain.com/race28...eastern-enduro-3-the-kingdom-enduro-burke-vt/


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

DaveVt said:


> Your race results don't lie Matta. So Far Down the list. Beat by most of the teenies. Pretty sure you could take some pointers by most anyone riding along.
> Talk SOOOO MUCH about riding and bikes, but...oh no, you're terrible at riding them. Talk SO MUCH about trails and trail work...but ooopps...you don't do any work or build anything. You sir, are a huge Poser. Enjoy yourself.
> https://www.rootsandrain.com/race28...eastern-enduro-3-the-kingdom-enduro-burke-vt/


Thanks Nino for that blow by blow play...

;-P

-----------------------------------------------------------
'Yes! I'm an opinionated Mofo... Next question'.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

zrm said:


> I don't know that I'd want to try push one too hard down a steep, twisty mtn road though. :lol:


I did a lot of road a couple years ago. Ridden some of the most common roads for cycling in So Cal. Rock Store, Stunt, Piuma, Mulholland, Decker...and I've never seen a recumbent on those roads. I've punted a bent around the shop. No way I'd ride one down a twisty mountain road...especially Decker Canyon.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> Your race results don't lie Matta. So Far Down the list. Beat by most of the teenies. Pretty sure you could take some pointers by most anyone riding along.
> Talk SOOOO MUCH about riding and bikes, but...oh no, you're terrible at riding them. Talk SO MUCH about trails and trail work...but ooopps...you don't do any work or build anything. You sir, are a huge Poser. Enjoy yourself.
> https://www.rootsandrain.com/race28...eastern-enduro-3-the-kingdom-enduro-burke-vt/


hey I was asking for help. Nice of you to cherry pick a race result where I missed course tape like 4 times. Why werent you there?

I bet you 1000 dollars I am faster down Tom G' than you. Seriously. If I suck so bad its should be an easy way to make some money.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> I did a lot of road a couple years ago. Ridden some of the most common roads for cycling in So Cal. Rock Store, Stunt, Piuma, Mulholland, Decker...and I've never seen a recumbent on those roads. I've punted a bent around the shop. No way I'd ride one down a twisty mountain road...especially Decker Canyon.


Decker is one of my favorite canyon runs. If you see a Mini or a Lotus not wasting any time, give me a wave and I'll make sure to give you lots of room. Don't wanna run over a fellow MTBRer.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> hey I was asking for help. Nice of you to cherry pick a race result where I missed course tape like 4 times. Why werent you there?
> 
> I bet you 1000 dollars I am faster down Tom G' than you. Seriously. If I suck so bad its should be an easy way to make some money.


I tried to race you once at Waterbury. You were a no show. I win by DQ. Undefeated against you. I don't ride to compete, had enough of that as a youth. Only thing I compete in now is Jiu Jitsu. Care to go a round or two at that? It would help out a lot. You definitely suck at least that bad....your lack of ability is only a very small part it. STRAVA! COMING THROUGH!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> I tried to race you once at Waterbury. You were a no show. I win by DQ. Undefeated against you. I don't ride to compete, had enough of that as a youth. Only thing I compete in now is Jiu Jitsu. Care to go a round or two at that? It would help out a lot. You definitely suck at least that bad....your lack of ability is only a very small part it. STRAVA! COMING THROUGH!


so you do not want a 1000 dollars?

I have ridden Perry Hill maybe 10 times in my life, no way I am going to race you there. It would be foolish.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> so you do not want a 1000 dollars?
> 
> I have ridden Perry Hill maybe 10 times in my life, no way I am going to race you there. It would be foolish.


I want nothing you have...or to ever be in your presence. You are what everyone is discovering is wrong with the current version of what it means to be a Mountain Biker. I mean that with all my soul.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I think it a mistake to disregard at least portions of this perspective.
> 
> I really like the stick-shift, rear-wheel-drive analogy. An analogy we use all the time is learning to ride on a HT and what it does for your skills.
> 
> ...


QFT. Ya don't know....what ya don't know.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> I want nothing you have...or to ever be in your presence. You are what everyone is discovering is wrong with the current version of what it means to be a Mountain Biker. I mean that with all my soul.


loser never post on MTBR again. again is I suck so bad it will be the easiest win you ever have taken. I do not even have to be there, use your smart phone, borrow someone's GPS. One run for all the marbles. Heck as many runs as you want.

Easy way to not be in my presence.

curious Packie how long is your Stem on your bike? My guess is 50mm or less......


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> loser never post on MTBR again. again is I suck so bad it will be the easiest win you ever have taken. I do not even have to be there, use your smart phone, borrow someone's GPS. One run for all the marbles. Heck as many runs as you want.
> 
> Easy way to not be in my presence.
> 
> curious Packie how long is your Stem on your bike? My guess is 50mm or less......


I care so little about fast anymore. That was like 15 years ago. Style, precision, control. That's my jam now. Going fast for fasts sake sucked from way BITD. Save it for the roadies. The guy winning at MTBing ...... that's the guy having the most fun. (hint, not you)


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

sounds to me that you are so superior to me in MTBing in every way that you wouldnt even have to go fast to beat me.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> sounds to me that you are so superior to me in MTBing in every way that you wouldnt even have to go fast to beat me.


Basically. PS....not about the bike(s) or the stem....


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> Basically. PS....not about the bike(s) or the stem....


well then are you scared you may actually post a slower time than me? I mean you would never live that down, especially after all your **** talking.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

So umm... what's wrong with posers? Aren't they what support these kind of sports?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> well then are you scared you may actually post a slower time than me? I mean you would never live that down, especially after all your **** talking.


What else do you do Josh? I mean, I'm a 41 year old Dad. I train BJJ twice a week. Find time to fly fish. Just past 14 years a married, over 20 with my love. Build trail every week. I ride once a week. You're a 30 year old trustafarian who works 2 part time jobs and rides all the time. You may move down the trail faster then me these days, buy here's the point.. no one #ucking cares. You are an entitled douche who spews about their prowess because of your strava times, disrespects everyone fighting for access FOR YOU, refuses to pick up a trail tool or even respect trail closures, are openly defiant on the intardwebs about it...still....no one cares. Yet, when you show up at an event to compete against your kind....you get smoked....blow off course...then blame the course. Excuses why you won't help with trail work. Excuses why you got smoked at the race. Entitled to ride where and what you want regardless, without contributing. You're a user, loser. There's way more to life the how fast you get from A......to....B. How much did you contribute to that which you took joy from along the way. Did you move with grace, respect, style as you traveled down the trail.....or did you skitter down trough, legs pumping like some awkward frantic beast cutting corners and never stopping to enjoy the moment because, Christ....my KOM Status! Get it or don't. So far, you don't. We may ride the same trail...but you don't even see my line kid.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

l'oiseau said:


> So umm... what's wrong with posers? Aren't they what support these kind of sports?


Sadly....now with MTBing...yea.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Nobody likes a braggy little trustfunder... I get it. I've learned to ignore these types. Most of what they brag and babble about has little consequence to what I do. I'd suggest saving your strength and sanity for riding and forgetting it... I know it's hard to do. I've had people blow up my skirt more than once on the internet.

Those that know the journey is more important than the destination will understand what you wrote, but we can all get wrapped up in the bs and miss the forest lost in the trees.

There is a big reason I no longer race bikes, cars, karts, skis, or even go to tracks or resorts much anymore. What you point out is a big part of it. Plus it's not good for the environs. Let them have it... I rarely run into anyone that bugs me out doing my own thing...


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

l'oiseau said:


> Nobody likes a braggy little trustfunder... I get it. I've learned to ignore these types. Most of what they brag and babble about has little consequence to what I do. I'd suggest saving your strength and sanity for riding and forgetting it... I know it's hard to do. I've had people blow up my skirt more than once on the internet.
> 
> Those that know the journey is more important than the destination will understand what you wrote, but we can all get wrapped up in the bs and miss the forest lost in the trees.
> 
> There is a big reason I no longer race bikes, cars, karts, skis, or even go to tracks or resorts much anymore. What you point out is a big part of it. Plus it's not good for the environs. Let them have it... I rarely run into anyone that bugs me out doing my own thing...


Truth. Former D1 athlete, had enough of "Winning", abandon the ski resort scene over a decade ago for the reason you mentioned. Unfortunately, this d bag gets to me after watching my MTB community devolve into a tourist and wanna-be poser mecca. It hurts when you have a lot of time in and watch it all go the $#!t. This guy, everything he says need to be read in context so I will call him out. The End.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> so you do not want a 1000 dollars?
> 
> I have ridden Perry Hill maybe 10 times in my life, no way I am going to race you there. It would be foolish.


Rather then challenging everybody to race, go and do some races. From looks of it you got absolutely crushed at that Enduro last year. I know the girl who won quite well, she is really quick, probably among the top 10 XC descenders in the world. She was probably racing her XC hardtail with 100mm stem, *might *have lowered her seat and she was still putting more than a minute into you in some of the stages. Maybe you had a bad day, we all have them, but right now you shouldn't be challenging anybody to races for money. Somebody is going to take you up on it and you are going to lose a $1000.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

So many angry people on mtbr lately... Must be getting close to Xmas (i.e. new bikes being released)...

-----------------------------------------------------------
'Yes! I'm an opinionated Mofo... Next question'.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

LMN said:


> Rather then challenging everybody to race, go and do some races. From looks of it you got absolutely crushed at that Enduro last year. I know the girl who won quite well, she is really quick, probably among the top 10 XC descenders in the world. She was probably racing her XC hardtail with 100mm stem, *might *have lowered her seat and she was still putting more than a minute into you in some of the stages. Maybe you had a bad day, we all have them, but right now you shouldn't be challenging anybody to races for money. Somebody is going to take you up on it and you are going to lose a $1000.


doubtful....I never make bets I would lose. Hence why I bet Dave. I would also rather race a trail I know then some jubbled together course that I think I know because I have ridden the trail.

and apparently Dave has not seen my rusting out 1998 CRV and he does not show up at the SMBC trail work days I have been to. Heck there is video of me helping out.

at the enduro I did not have time to preride and rode under course tape that was over head high 4 times.......I was looking down the trail but the course tape did not follow the trail and with out preriding there was noway of knowing that the course and the trail were not the same thing.

Kim was running a Process 153 with a dropper. I think thats who won right? She did crush me, but prerode and I am sure did not get lost.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> What else do you do Josh? I mean, I'm a 41 year old Dad. I train BJJ twice a week. Find time to fly fish. Just past 14 years a married, over 20 with my love. Build trail every week. I ride once a week. You're a 30 year old trustafarian who works 2 part time jobs and rides all the time. You may move down the trail faster then me these days, buy here's the point.. no one #ucking cares. You are an entitled douche who spews about their prowess because of your strava times, disrespects everyone fighting for access FOR YOU, refuses to pick up a trail tool or even respect trail closures, are openly defiant on the intardwebs about it...still....no one cares. Yet, when you show up at an event to compete against your kind....you get smoked....blow off course...then blame the course. Excuses why you won't help with trail work. Excuses why you got smoked at the race. Entitled to ride where and what you want regardless, without contributing. You're a user, loser. There's way more to life the how fast you get from A......to....B. How much did you contribute to that which you took joy from along the way. Did you move with grace, respect, style as you traveled down the trail.....or did you skitter down trough, legs pumping like some awkward frantic beast cutting corners and never stopping to enjoy the moment because, Christ....my KOM Status! Get it or don't. So far, you don't. We may ride the same trail...but you don't even see my line kid.


well first I have no trust. I probably have a ton of money coming from me from my dad, but I would rather him stay alive so I never get it. Heck I drive around a 1500 dollar car so I can afford my bikes. My girlfriend had a trust. With the purchase of our house that is no more. We are poorer than you I am sure of it.

I work 2 full time jobs as well as help my SO with some of her business start-up like her Soap business., in fact in the winter I quite often work 7 days a week because its much better paying than my summer job. I pay for my whole year basically in the winter.

Yes I ride all the time but these days I almost all way ride with my girl, and I would rather spend time with her than race. I was getting 10-15 hours a week of riding time now I am lucky to get 5 hours in a week. I ride nearly every day but short slow ride.

I hate cut corners as much as you and if I all I did was try to go fast i would probably would have died by now.

Also apparenty I do not know how to have fun.......


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

It would be nice if you guys can stay on the topic of this thread. It just gets tiring reading your personal attacks. I can assure you there are very few interested in reading it. Can you please take it to the privacy of PM?
Thank you.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

jazzanova said:


> It would be nice if you guys can stay on the topic of this thread. It just gets tiring reading your personal attacks. I can assure you there are very few interested in reading it. Can you please take it to the privacy of PM?
> Thank you.


I did not start it. I actually never start it.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> Kim was running a Process 153 with a dropper. I think thats who won right? She did crush me, but prerode and I am sure did not get lost.


Nope, it was ALN who I believe was on a Rocky Mountain Vertex (at that time I think that is the only bike she had). If I recall the story, ALN did race it blind.

And to keep it on topic she used a long stem.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Keep on topic? This was about the most interesting conversation on this whole thread.

It might be better served in Passion as there seems to be a fair bit of it on either side.

I gotta say in all my years of internet forum interaction (and this includes everything from being banned to moderating), calling someone out publicly to a race or some sort of dick-swingin' challenge never goes well. Just a word to the wise. I've been on both sides of it, and I get it... best to just let it go...


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> My original quote stands, dude learn to ride, you suck, with those times I would win with my CX bike over you, BWAAWAWAWAWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


seriously your an ass and *****. Talking behind a name that no one knows. I would bet you my house that if I pick the trail that you lose by more than a minute on your CX bike.

seriously its a nice house. All I d want in return is you to post up on every MTBR forum how badly you suck.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

This thread delivers.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

BushwackerinPA I'll beat you on my hardtail with coaster brakes


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

PM sent. anonymous talk is silly cheap behind a screen name. I would rather actually embarrass you in person.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Anyhoo - back on topic. 

I ride in SoCal so lots of ups and downs and sandy, blown out terrain due to the drought. Lots of chunk as well.

My thoughts - the size of the bike first needs to fit you. To big or too small and your seat will be too far forward or too far back on the rails to achieve a proper pedaling position. Also a larger bike will feel too rangy and the longer wheelbase will make tight uphill switchbacks a pain in the ass. 

The size of the bars need to fit you. Using the push-up analogy - too narrow or too wide both affect ergonomics negatively. My suggestion is slightly wider than shoulder width. If you are going to 800mm bars just to ride that short stem and you aren't very tall, I suspect you are choosing an incompatible bar size just to ride that short stem. 

Weighting the front tire is important. Using our DH friends as an example it seems most of their crashes happen around seemingly benign corners where their front tire just washes out on them. I have watched all of the UCI events this year and at least 75 percent of the crashes happened like this. Opting for a short stem will make you ride more upright taking weight off the front wheel and causing this lack of traction while cornering. Descending on chunky trails will make the front end feel like it isn't tracking correctly. 

Reach vs. effective top tube - first measurement is good for out of the seat handling. Second is better for seated riding. For your riding, what do you do more? Even if your ascent and descent per ride are the same, you are climbing most of the time. This is where the longer stem comes in. If the bike is perfect for you for riding in the saddle, you may find the cockpit too cramped with a 35 mm stem and upright seated position a short stem will create isn't exactly the best for maximizing pedaling efficiency. Also, if you are climbing up 15 - 20 percent grades you will have to slide forward on the seat. A short stem will make this position very uncomfortable. 

The notion that shorter stems are always better in all situations is utter nonsense. Bike fit is first (bad bike fit does affect all situations) and what type of riding you do should determine stem length.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

LMN your friend rode a Rocky Mountain Instinct. So she is still badass but not as badass as running a hardtail at an enduro or me who stupidly ran a SS hardtail.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

SDMTB'er said:


> Weighting the front tire is important. Using our DH friends as an example it seems most of their crashes happen around seemingly benign corners where their front tire just washes out on them. I have watched all of the UCI events this year and at least 75 percent of the crashes happened like this. Opting for a short stem will make you ride more upright taking weight off the front wheel and causing this lack of traction while cornering. Descending on chunky trails will make the front end feel like it isn't tracking correctly.


Are you suggesting that WC pros should consider using longer stems? I agree that a lot of crashes happen because the front wheel loses traction but to my untrained eye it appears that often seems to happen when the front wheel is _too_ weighted in a corner, not allowing it to track properly.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> Anyhoo - back on topic.
> 
> I ride in SoCal so lots of ups and downs and sandy, blown out terrain due to the drought. Lots of chunk as well.
> 
> ...


a short stem is always better assuming you have a long enough TT to make it work.

My current bike is perfect for me riding the saddle with a 35m stem because I bought a size up from what Giant would put me on. It also have the saddle slammed foward and a fairly steep STA so that there is no wheelies going up on really steep terrain.

https://www.strava.com/activities/385490506/segments/9216649821

this is climb at my local trails. it has sections over 20 percent grade and lots of ledges and step up on the flatter section. I climb it faster on my 35mm stem 24.2 TT bike then I did on my 23.6 TT 80mm stem bike. I also have no issue with the front end coming up on the entire climb.

I am still trying to figure out why you guys think a short stem would be uncomfortable assuming the bike is the right length. IMO if you are running a long stem the bike is TOO small for you.

There are also so few places where you climb for over a 15 percent grade. I can think of a half dozen climbs around here and they are not that popular save one(perry Hill) that have climbs over 15-20 percent. On my geared bike I steep climbs are not really an issue and quite often lead to some of the best riding but the majority of people just do not even do them.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you suggesting that WC pros should consider using longer stems? I agree that a lot of crashes happen because the front wheel loses traction but to my untrained eye it appears that often seems to happen when the front wheel is _too_ weighted in a corner, not allowing it to track properly.


I wouldn't suggest they need longer stems. WC DH tracks are so steep that the short stem is necessary for them to achieve a good front and rear weight balance.

That same backward balance makes DH bikes pretty horrible to ride on shallow grades. Unless you are right over the bars that front tire will not bite at all. I am not sure a longer stem would actually effect this. The super-slack head angle is the primary challenge.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

The Ratboy himself said he was having trouble weighting the front wheel with the new geo and 650b, so is running a 60mm stem with an 8mm offset King Headset.

Skip to 3:15 to hear that Rat speak


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> well first I have no trust. I probably have a ton of money coming from me from my dad, but I would rather him stay alive so I never get it. Heck I drive around a 1500 dollar car so I can afford my bikes. My girlfriend had a trust. With the purchase of our house that is no more. We are poorer than you I am sure of it.
> 
> I work 2 full time jobs as well as help my SO with some of her business start-up like her Soap business., in fact in the winter I quite often work 7 days a week because its much better paying than my summer job. I pay for my whole year basically in the winter.
> 
> ...


So you brought your house in Hyde Park with 30 acres with a trust fund. Trustfarian. As I said. Keep pretending it was all that landscaper grunt work and ski instruction that "earned" your lifestyle. I can see you now at the Steaux Farmers market..."We're just some poor hipsters from Hyde Park with or little Hand Made Soap Business. BTW, here's the link so you can crowd fund us 'casue we work SO hard.... 



PS. What does your back seat skiing into underbrush and double pole plant noodleing have to do with anything? We're talking about riding bikes roadie. Here's a crew of people having fun on Bikes...on trails they BUILT....over a decade ago...showing skills you still don't have, and balls you will never have...I'm on the Green Evil. Keep racing around that hamster wheel Josh Matta. You're a WINNER! 




Get back on your meds Josh.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

LMN said:


> I wouldn't suggest they need longer stems. WC DH tracks are so steep that the short stem is necessary for them to achieve a good front and rear weight balance.


I wouldn't suggest they use a longer stem either for the same reasons you mentioned, to me a lot of the WC DH stackups I've seen seem to be the result of the bike not being balanced between the wheels, specifically nose heavy.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you suggesting that WC pros should consider using longer stems? I agree that a lot of crashes happen because the front wheel loses traction but to my untrained eye it appears that often seems to happen when the front wheel is _too_ weighted in a corner, not allowing it to track properly.


Exactly.

It's actually difficult to take too much weight off the front when descending or cornering.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

knutso said:


> The Ratboy himself said he was having trouble weighting the front wheel with the new geo and 650b, so is running a 60mm stem with an 8mm offset King Headset.
> 
> Skip to 3:15 to hear that Rat speak


Were Minnar and Peat having the same problem?

All three of them are around 6'3", btw...which causes sizing problems if the bike was designed for average sized riders.

What were the differences between the 26 and 27.5 V10?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

knutso said:


> The Ratboy himself said he was having trouble weighting the front wheel with the new geo and 650b, so is running a 60mm stem with an 8mm offset King Headset.
> 
> Skip to 3:15 to hear that Rat speak


Isn't that interesting.

I don't pay a lot of attention to DH bike set-up, but I have heard that some are finding that it is possible for a stem to be too short.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> So you brought your house in Hyde Park with 30 acres with a trust fund. Trustfarian. As I said. Keep pretending it was all that landscaper grunt work and ski instruction that "earned" your lifestyle. I can see you now at the Steaux Farmers market..."We're just some poor hipsters from Hyde Park with or little Hand Made Soap Business. BTW, here's the link so you can crowd fund us 'casue we work SO hard....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so how is it our fault that our parents(well in my GF's case her grandparents) were successful enough that they left money to be used? What should we have done with Dave instead of setting up a comfortable future for ourselves? including planning way s to make more money to keep the dream alive because we have virtually no savings now. We bought something this large because the Rent, and money to be made from agricultural(eventually meat, and maple) means sustains the property. A smaller property is actually less financially sound. Being able to ski and MTB out the back door is a great bonus.

Why is it in american that is all about being successful but as soon as you passed it on, its a bad thing.

It funny how critical you are off me but the grapevine says you can not even keep a job. Any job. Let alone one that actually pays half way well.

I am also quite the roadie, I have nt road a road bike for 3 years now......


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

knutso said:


> The Ratboy himself said he was having trouble weighting the front wheel with the new geo and 650b, so is running a 60mm stem with an 8mm offset King Headset.
> 
> Skip to 3:15 to hear that Rat speak


What in THE HELL did he say??? :lol:

ok I think I got it. Bikes are getting longer which is making it hard to put enough weight on the front which hurts cornering. So he increased his stem length to 60mm to get more weight on the front for cornering.

He might be a pro and a kick ass rider, but he obviously doesn't spend enough time reading the marketing hype and especially reading this forum!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> What in THE HELL did he say??? :lol:
> 
> ok I think I got it. Bikes are getting longer which is making it hard to put enough weight on the front which hurts cornering. So he increased his stem length to 60mm to get more weight on the front for cornering.
> 
> He might be a pro and a kick ass rider, but he obviously doesn't spend enough time reading the marketing hype and especially reading this forum!


he also rides a bike much shorter than Greg's and they are basically the same size. his wing span is HUGE as well.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> He might be a pro and a kick ass rider, but he obviously doesn't spend enough time reading the marketing hype and especially reading this forum!


Ahh but this is mountain biking. Remember the internet warrior knows a lot more about what makes a mountain bike fast then the professionals of the sport.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> he also rides a bike much shorter than Greg's and they are basically the same size. his wing span is HUGE as well.


Isn't that the whole point, here?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> a short stem is always better assuming you have a long enough TT to make it work.


Dude, you are just flat out wrong. Your bike is set up incorrectly, btw.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Dude, you are just flat out wrong. Your bike is set up incorrectly, btw.


so then why I am going faster on it, then my old bike?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> What in THE HELL did he say???
> 
> ok I think I got it. Bikes are getting longer which is making it hard to put enough weight on the front which hurts cornering. So he increased his stem length to 60mm to get more weight on the front for cornering.
> 
> He might be a pro and a kick ass rider, but he obviously doesn't spend enough time reading the marketing hype and especially reading this forum!


Yeah, a 6'3" dude increasing stem length by 10mm is a clear defense of 130 mm stems.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> so then why I am going faster on it, then my old bike?


Because you don't have the terrain, skills, or riding style for your old bike.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Yeah, a 6'3" dude increasing stem length by 10mm is a clear defense of 130 mm stems.


So it's a clear defense of 35mm stems for all riders? A downhill pro racer running a medium length stem says a ton about the validity of longer stems in trail and cross-country applications. Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that not everybody will benefit from a short stem?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So it's a clear defense of 35mm stems for all riders?


its not, but I was already a Cat 1 XC racer on my old bike. Even if I was the strongest pedaler in the world(I am not) you can become that fast from not having any skills.

I would go so far to say I was over terrain ed all the time on my old bike. Now I feel under all the time. I would personally feel underterrained than over personally.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> its not, but I was already a Cat 1 XC racer on my old bike. Even if I was the strongest pedaler in the world(I am not) you can become that fast from not having any skills.
> 
> I would go so far to say I was over terrain ed all the time on my old bike. Now I feel under all the time. I would personally feel underterrained than over personally.


So for you and your applications, your current setup works. That's f'ing awesome. It doesn't make it ideal for everybody, or even anybody else.

Also, if I felt "underterrained" all the time, I'd be bored as hell. I don't mountain bike to remove every challenge on the trail. If I was racing, as you do, I would be after maximum efficiency at all costs.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So for you and your applications, your current setup works. That's f'ing awesome. It doesn't make it ideal for everybody, or even anybody else.


assuming up and down riding, i believe the set up work for everyone rolling terrain then heck no it would suck.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> assuming up and down riding, i believe the set up work for everyone rolling terrain then heck no it would suck.


You just can't have as playful of a bike with super long wheelbases. The new geometry makes the bike more difficult to maneuver. Period. That's what I enjoy the most about mountain biking. Again, if I was purely a racer, I would feel differently depending on the course.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It's actually difficult to take too much weight off the front when descending or cornering.


Yeah, if you're riding down a World Cup level downhill.

I was thinking about these geometry threads on my ride, today, and I did a little experiment. Since you don't have to weight your front tire to turn, I took my hands off the bars and tried a few different turns. If I leaned, I could make a sweeping turn. I just could not make a sharp turn for the life of me, however. If I put the tips of my pointer fingers back on the bar, I could turn much sharper, but my front tire would push severely on the loose surface. As I increased the pressure I put on my bar, I was able to turn without my front tire washing out. My hypothesis is that increasing pressure on the handlebars increased front traction. Decreasing pressure on the bar decreased front traction. I'm confused, as my experiment is vastly different than the claims made in this thread...

Here's another thought... Why bother choosing a front tire based on tread design or compound? If there is less weight on the front tire, and this has no impact on steering traction, there is little friction between the front tire and trail. No friction means no traction. If the knobs don't dig in, there is no reason for side knobs.

I know I'm being a bit ridiculous, and I'm assuming you're saying that keeping your weight balanced will automatically weight the front tire enough for most turns, but I can recall numerous times when I needed to put more weight on the front tire to avoid washing out my front end. More weight over the front wheel can be the difference between sticking a turn and washing out.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So it's a clear defense of 35mm stems for all riders? A downhill pro racer running a medium length stem says a ton about the validity of longer stems in trail and cross-country applications. Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that not everybody will benefit from a short stem?


The V10 comes stock with a 50mm stem and a very tall, 6'3", rider uses a 60 mm stem. Considering how far from average they are, it DOES give some credence to the idea that shorter, AVERAGE SIZED, riders could use a really stubby stem.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

And if Jared Graves rides a 100mm stem on his ARC and ASRc?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yeah, if you're riding down a World Cup level downhill.
> 
> I was thinking about these geometry threads on my ride, today, and I did a little experiment. Since you don't have to weight your front tire to turn, I took my hands off the bars and tried a few different turns. If I leaned, I could make a sweeping turn. I just could not make a sharp turn for the life of me, however. If I put the tips of my pointer fingers back on the bar, I could turn much sharper, but my front tire would push severely on the loose surface. As I increased the pressure I put on my bar, I was able to turn without my front tire washing out. My hypothesis is that increasing pressure on the handlebars increased front traction. Decreasing pressure on the bar decreased front traction. I'm confused, as my experiment is vastly different than the claims made in this thread...
> 
> ...


By placing your fingertips on the bars, you're proving my point. Who would ever do that? How far back would your weight have to be in order to have both hands on the bar and have so little weight on them? I really don't understand how you think using outright hyperbole proves anything.

Obviously there is weight on the front, but not as much as on the back. Equal weight on both wheels will cause the front to wash out first, probably because not only is it leaned over, it's also slightly turned, lowering the maximum level of grip that it can provide.

Look at photos of people cornering while racing DS, watch the Barel cornering videos. Their weight is back towards the rear tire.

Why do you think people use softer compound front tires than in the rear? Because the rear tire is, or at least should be, under a heavier load? I had 3C High Rollers front and rear, and while the front tire lasted about as long as I expected it to, the side knobs on the rear were ripping off after 100 miles? Why was that? Maybe because the rear tire was under a higher load while cornering because more weight was on it?


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Josh Bryceland's bike had the 60mm stem and an 8mm offset headset, so he is pushing his bars 18mm out beyond the stock setup.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

richde said:


> By placing your fingertips on the bars, you're proving my point. Who would ever do that? How far back would your weight have to be in order to have both hands on the bar and have so little weight on them? I really don't understand how you think using outright hyperbole proves anything.
> 
> Obviously there is weight on the front, but not as much as on the back. Equal weight on both wheels will cause the front to wash out first, probably because not only is it leaned over, it's also slightly turned, lowering the maximum level of grip that it can provide.
> 
> ...


ummm weight starts on the front, and finishes on the rear. but not always.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> The V10 comes stock with a 50mm stem and a very tall, 6'3", rider uses a 60 mm stem. Considering how far from average they are, it DOES give some credence to the idea that shorter, AVERAGE SIZED, riders could use a really stubby stem.


ON A DOWNHILL BIKE! Downhill bikes have been using shorter stems for the last 15 years. If he's running a 60mm stem on a downhill bike, then that says a ton about trail and cross-country bikes and applications.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

LMN said:


> Isn't that interesting.
> 
> I don't pay a lot of attention to DH bike set-up, but I have heard that some are finding that it is possible for a stem to be too short.


There it is. Stems too short will result in loss of traction of the front wheel. Again, most washouts happen in UCI DH because of this. Shorter is not always better.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> By placing your fingertips on the bars, you're proving my point. Who would ever do that? How far back would your weight have to be in order to have both hands on the bar and have so little weight on them? I really don't understand how you think using outright hyperbole proves anything.
> 
> Obviously there is weight on the front, but not as much as on the back. Equal weight on both wheels will cause the front to wash out first, probably because not only is it leaned over, it's also slightly turned, lowering the maximum level of grip that it can provide.
> 
> ...


Dual slalom has berms, 99% downhill, and bikes with short wheelbases. Totally different than the bikes and terrain being discussed in this thread. You're right about softer compound on the front, because you want more traction in the front and the front tire doesn't wear as fast. This is usually because of skidding while braking through corners. A lot of rear tire wear has nothing to do with cornering. It's from weighting your back tire while bombing rock gardens, landing from jumps and drops with your weight back, and whatnot. People run higher psi and thicker casings in the rear because of straight-line riding, not because of turning, although a nice benefit of that is increased front traction. Read up on "attack position". You don't ride aggressively while seated in the typical 40-60 rear weight bias. You ride with your elbows bent, your chin dropped above the stem, and your butt hovering above the seat. You ride aggressively by dropping your upper body mass over the handlebar. Well, you might not...


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You just can't have as playful of a bike with super long wheelbases. The new geometry makes the bike more difficult to maneuver. Period. That's what I enjoy the most about mountain biking. Again, if I was purely a racer, I would feel differently depending on the course.


What is the longest WB bike you have used?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

richde said:


> Yeah, a 6'3" dude increasing stem length by 10mm is a clear defense of 130 mm stems.


Talking about 130mm stems is a complete non sequitur. No one is trying to make a case for 130mm stems (OK, maybe one poster is ).

You propose that there is one style of geometry, with a very narrow range of related stem lengths, that will be superior for the vast majority of riders. The counterpoint is that there may be different setups which are optimal for different riders and different applications. If your riding preferences don't benefit from having a setup with a longer stem, and you have something that works for you, that's fantastic. Don't presume to speak for me though. My goals and needs may be different enough from yours to benefit from an alternate setup.

What is it with treating this like some sort of jihad that you must "win"? As I mentioned above, if you have something that you like, and it works for you, then you've already won. Following that logic, I can win too, even if my preferences aren't the same as yours. It's not an exclusive.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Obviously there is weight on the front, but not as much as on the back.
> 
> Look at photos of people cornering while racing DS, watch the Barel cornering videos. Their weight is back towards the rear tire.


Their weight is back because they are on downhill which transfers their weight to front tire. If you were to actually measure the weight bias as they enter the corner you would see the majority of their weight is in the front wheel.

I ride with some pretty fast guys. Ranging from World Cup XC pros, top 30 EWS riders, to guys who have on been the podium at WC downhills. Every single one of them will tell you that you want for front end grip you have weight the front tire.

The whole point of modern geometry is to get you forward. To ride slack angles and short stems well you have to be forward on your bike. In aggressive and steep terrain this is a huge advantage, on mellow trails terrain with modern geometry sometimes it is impossible to get far enough forward.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> What is the longest WB bike you have used?


Not sure, honestly, I've had a few downhill/freeride bikes in the past with slack angles, long travel, and long chainstays. My current bike is an XL Santa Cruz Bantam, and this is the longest trail bike I've ever had. I've ridden 29ers with long wheelbases, but that adds in another variable to wheelbase. I would absolutely not want to go any longer than my XL Bantam. I am running a 60mm stem with 750mm bars, and this is as short and wide as I want to go. I am 6' 3" tall with long legs, so sizing down with the new and improved super short seat tubes is no longer an option for me. I ride a lot of tight, technical, and twisty trails with numerous switchbacks that require a bike to make precise lines and tight turns. I can feel the bike struggle to make some of these switchbacks and tight lines that I had little problem making with my old XL Superlight 650b conversion, so the slacker angles and longer wheelbase are the logical culprits. I also notice that my bike is less fun in the air, with more body engish required to make midair corrections or adjustments. If I went with a Gen 2 Santa Cruz as my next bike, I would have to run a 30mm stem to get the same reach as my Bantam and compromise even more on some of my trails. I would gladly give up some stability of these new bikes to maintain more maneuverability. I guess these new bikes are designed for noobs or people that just bomb straight lines all day. Trails are different in different parts of the country. I might just have to go back to Cannondale, who knows what the East Coast is like.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Circlip said:


> What is it with treating this like some sort of jihad that you must "win"? As I mentioned above, if you have something that you like, and it works for you, then you've already won. Following that logic, I can win too, even if my preferences aren't the same as yours. It's not an exclusive.


Many people tend to get very invested in justifying whatever current trend of the moment bandwagon their particular activity is in the midst of. After all, they spent a lot of money on _____ . Mountain bikers tend to be particularly susceptible to this. Be it wide riser bars, dropper posts, flats, or short stems, there is a segment of the community that is always going to argue that whatever their current fetish is is a "must have", especially if the sport is to be "progressive" (I really don't know what that term is supposed to mean but it gets tossed around a lot).

Manufacturers love this (justifiably so) because it means enough people are going to be buying all this "must have" gear to keep the lights on and the employees in paychecks. The media loves it because it gives them something to revue and the manufacturers have to buy ad space to sell all those new "must have, game changing" items.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

zrm said:


> Many people tend to get very invested in justifying whatever current trend of the moment bandwagon their particular activity is in the midst of. After all, they spent a lot of money on _____ . Mountain bikers tend to be particularly susceptible to this. Be it wide riser bars, dropper posts, flats, or short stems, there is a segment of the community that is always going to argue that whatever their current fetish is is a "must have", especially if the sport is to be "progressive" (I really don't know what that term is supposed to mean but it gets tossed around a lot).
> 
> Manufacturers love this (justifiably so) because it means enough people are going to be buying all this "must have" gear to keep the lights on and the employees in paychecks. The media loves it because it gives them something to revue and the manufacturers have to buy ad space to sell all those new "must have, game changing" items.


I'll play devil's advocate for the other team here, and note that it seems you are discounting this "new" geo as a mere trend, when there's a good chance it could actually stick around as a new mainstream option that's well-suited to the needs of some riders. Maybe even well-suited to the needs and preferences of a lot of riders. Time will tell. Even if it doesn't stick as the flav of the day, so long as some riders are liking it that's good enough. It's not a popularity contest, there's no need to win a majority. Imagine if there was only one setup or style of bike or geometry available to us as riders, and everyone had to somehow squeeze themselves into that same shape of box? Ewww....


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Not sure, honestly, I've had a few downhill/freeride bikes in the past with slack angles, long travel, and long chainstays. My current bike is an XL Santa Cruz Bantam, and this is the longest trail bike I've ever had. I've ridden 29ers with long wheelbases, but that adds in another variable to wheelbase. I would absolutely not want to go any longer than my XL Bantam. I am running a 60mm stem with 750mm bars, and this is as short and wide as I want to go. I am 6' 3" tall with long legs, so sizing down with the new and improved super short seat tubes is no longer an option for me. I ride a lot of tight, technical, and twisty trails with numerous switchbacks that require a bike to make precise lines and tight turns. I can feel the bike struggle to make some of these switchbacks and tight lines that I had little problem making with my old XL Superlight 650b conversion, so the slacker angles and longer wheelbase are the logical culprits. I also notice that my bike is less fun in the air, with more body engish required to make midair corrections or adjustments. If I went with a Gen 2 Santa Cruz as my next bike, I would have to run a 30mm stem to get the same reach as my Bantam and compromise even more on some of my trails. I would gladly give up some stability of these new bikes to maintain more maneuverability. I guess these new bikes are designed for noobs or people that just bomb straight lines all day. Trails are different in different parts of the country. I might just have to go back to Cannondale, who knows what the East Coast is like.


the thing is EC is not all super twisty stuff like that. You are right if I rode really tight stuff with out long up ands down I would at least have different bike.





 these are my local trail. Most of them are far older than the current geo. Maybe you just need to make some more open trails?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

zrm said:


> Many people tend to get very invested in justifying whatever current trend of the moment bandwagon their particular activity is in the midst of. After all, they spent a lot of money on _____ . Mountain bikers tend to be particularly susceptible to this. Be it wide riser bars, dropper posts, flats, or short stems, there is a segment of the community that is always going to argue that whatever their current fetish is is a "must have", especially if the sport is to be "progressive" (I really don't know what that term is supposed to mean but it gets tossed around a lot).
> 
> Manufacturers love this (justifiably so) because it means enough people are going to be buying all this "must have" gear to keep the lights on and the employees in paychecks. The media loves it because it gives them something to revue and the manufacturers have to buy ad space to sell all those new "must have, game changing" items.


Oh, you mean all those things that are here to stay forever? Don't forget wide carbon rims.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the thing is EC is not all super twisty stuff like that. You are right if I rode really tight stuff with out long up ands down I would at least have different bike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting that the dude in the video grab with the short stem has a wrist brace on. Just saying...


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Take this as just another "theory on the Internet" but consider how the weight of the rider deforms the tire and establishes the contact patch. If you look at the two diagrams below, look at how the weight of the rider is directed toward the contact patch on the front wheel. The newer geometry puts the weight behind the center of the contact patch.

My hypothesis is this can cause more washouts because it is harder to more naturally weight the front tire while turning.

Definitely not arguing for 120mm stems but it seems there is a balance point for the type of riding you do.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Seems this review confirms my thoughts somewhat:

"Alas, I feel like a 140mm travel bike, even with a longer fork and relatively slack angles, should be able to rip on slower trails that require some bobbing and weaving, but the Foxy just doesn't gel on those sort of trails. I constantly found myself off line and not where I wanted to be in such situations, and the front-end of the bike would feel like it was switching between biting and giving up..."

"Its radical Forward Geometry inspires confidence in some situations, yet left me frustrated in others. A 140mm travel bike should be an all around badass, even if it has a longer-travel fork, and the Foxy is just too focused on all-out speed and rowdy terrain to wear that label."

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/mondraker-foxy-carbon-xr-review-2015.html


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

SDMTB'er said:


> Take this as just another "theory on the Internet" but consider how the weight of the rider deforms the tire and establishes the contact patch. If you look at the two diagrams below, look at how the weight of the rider is directed toward the contact patch on the front wheel. The newer geometry puts the weight behind the center of the contact patch.
> 
> My hypothesis is this can cause more washouts because it is harder to more naturally weight the front tire while turning.
> 
> Definitely not arguing for 120mm stems but it seems there is a balance point for the type of riding you do.


Makes sense to me..


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I


SDMTB'er said:


> Take this as just another "theory on the Internet" but consider how the weight of the rider deforms the tire and establishes the contact patch. If you look at the two diagrams below, look at how the weight of the rider is directed toward the contact patch on the front wheel. The newer geometry puts the weight behind the center of the contact patch.
> 
> My hypothesis is this can cause more washouts because it is harder to more naturally weight the front tire while turning.
> 
> Definitely not arguing for 120mm stems but it seems there is a balance point for the type of riding you do.


Yur hypothesis is BS. That dude is not even wearing shoes. After a few rides you get used to weighting the front more when you need to and it feels normal. Lately I've XC'd my Knolly Warden with my 50mm stem and the shock bolt in the steep 66.5 degree setting. 35mm was steering a little too quick on some of the steep DH switchbacks. The bike is now a real all rounder, and the best tech climber I've ever tried. Anyway, the body and mind adapt to different bikes after a bit. 2 friends also ride Wardens and they are incredible through the tight twisties. New geometry, new technique I guess.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I
> 
> Yur hypothesis is BS. That dude is not even wearing shoes. After a few rides you get used to weighting the front more when you need to and it feels normal. Lately I've XC'd my Knolly Warden with my 50mm stem and the shock bolt in the steep 66.5 degree setting. 35mm was steering a little too quick on some of the steep DH switchbacks. The bike is now a real all rounder, and the best tech climber I've ever tried. Anyway, the body and mind adapt to different bikes after a bit. 2 friends also ride Wardens and they are incredible through the tight twisties. New geometry, new technique I guess.


I agree. These long bikes have to be ridden differently. One cannot ride them from the back like the old short bikes. 
I think many vocal crusaders against the long reach geometry here have never ridden this kind of bike and come to conclusions based on the way they learned to ride or haven't really have enough time to adapt.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Makes sense to me..


What I get out of the image is that I can hardly tell the difference between the two. And that pretty much sums up all this threads hullabaloo. Trivia.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I think the mondrakers are a good example of taking things too far. The stems are ridiculous short and the bikes are enormously long. You cant just keep expanding a good thing and expect it to still be a good thing. I kinda feel the same about the plus size trend and hugely wide rims. We like to find the sweet spot, and then blow way past it until stuff doesnt work well anymore :lol:


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

One Pivot said:


> I think the mondrakers are a good example of taking things too far. The stems are ridiculous short and the bikes are enormously long. You cant just keep expanding a good thing and expect it to still be a good thing. I kinda feel the same about the plus size trend and hugely wide rims. We like to find the sweet spot, and then blow way past it until stuff doesnt work well anymore :lol:


Which Mondraker bike have you ridden?


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> What I get out of the image is that I can hardly tell the difference between the two. And that pretty much sums up all this threads hullabaloo. Trivia.


Isn't that pretty much all of MTBR or any other discussion forum? Unless you've ridden everything in every possible situation...it's all "hullabaloo". :cornut:


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> I
> 
> Yur hypothesis is BS. That dude is not even wearing shoes. After a few rides you get used to weighting the front more when you need to and it feels normal. Lately I've XC'd my Knolly Warden with my 50mm stem and the shock bolt in the steep 66.5 degree setting. 35mm was steering a little too quick on some of the steep DH switchbacks. The bike is now a real all rounder, and the best tech climber I've ever tried. Anyway, the body and mind adapt to different bikes after a bit. 2 friends also ride Wardens and they are incredible through the tight twisties. New geometry, new technique I guess.


Lolz - it is an illustration.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> I agree. These long bikes have to be ridden differently. One cannot ride them from the back like the old short bikes.
> I think many vocal crusaders against the long reach geometry here have never ridden this kind of bike and come to conclusions based on the way they learned to ride or haven't really have enough time to adapt.


So we just have have to learn to ride differently to benefit from the short stem?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> So we just have have to learn to ride differently to benefit from the short stem?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Pretty much. 
If it benefits and improves the overall ride, why not?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> What I get out of the image is that I can hardly tell the difference between the two. And that pretty much sums up all this threads hullabaloo. Trivia.


No way, in trivia some people are right. :lol:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> What I get out of the image is that I can hardly tell the difference between the two. And that pretty much sums up all this threads hullabaloo. Trivia.


I'm sure you can't tell the difference.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> I agree. These long bikes have to be ridden differently. One cannot ride them from the back like the old short bikes.
> I think many vocal crusaders against the long reach geometry here have never ridden this kind of bike and come to conclusions based on the way they learned to ride or haven't really have enough time to adapt.


I think many vocal crusaders for long reach geometry don't have the skills to maximize the abilities of a normal mountain bike.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Pretty much.
> If it benefits and improves the overall ride, why not?


You are silly


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think many vocal crusaders for long reach geometry don't have the skills to maximize the abilities of a normal mountain bike.


I bet people reacted in similar way when suspension was introduced, or disc brakes, or wider rubber...

Are you trying to say the old short geometry requires higher level of skills to maximize it's abilities than the new longer one? Because that's how it sounds. In that case wouldn't most intermediate riders benefit from the longer bike and be able to master it easier? 

Tell me about this phenomenon you call "normal bike". 
All the new bikes with longer reaches aren't normal?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> You are silly


I often am very silly.  
Most of the time actually.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> I bet people reacted in similar way when suspension was introduced, or disc brakes, or wider rubber...
> 
> Are you trying to say the old short geometry requires higher level of skills to maximize it's abilities than the new longer one? Because that's how it sounds. In that case wouldn't most intermediate riders benefit from the longer bike and be able to master it easier?
> 
> ...


If you've read any of my posts, that's exactly what I said. The new geometry makes trails easier, because bikes are more stable. Not a bad thing for most people on most trails, but not everybody on every trail. Most people were saying the new geo is easier to ride, but I think it is more challenging in certain situations. That's why I refuse to say that the new geometry is better for everybody.

Intermediate riders on most trails will benefit from the new geometry. A "normal" bike is a bike with current geometry. Are you saying this super long reach is not considered a new development?

Finally, this is nothing like disc brakes and wider rubber. Those are universally better for every rider. This geometry is a nice option, but it is not for everybody.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Intermediate riders on most trails will benefit from the new geometry.


What about advanced beginners on some trails, what's in it for them?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

LittleBitey said:


> What about advanced beginners on some trails, what's in it for them?


I'm guessing they'll be faster on certain trails?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

LMN said:


> Their weight is back because they are on downhill which transfers their weight to front tire. If you were to actually measure the weight bias as they enter the corner you would see the majority of their weight is in the front wheel.
> 
> I ride with some pretty fast guys. Ranging from World Cup XC pros, top 30 EWS riders, to guys who have on been the podium at WC downhills. Every single one of them will tell you that you want for front end grip you have weight the front tire.
> 
> The whole point of modern geometry is to get you forward. To ride slack angles and short stems well you have to be forward on your bike. In aggressive and steep terrain this is a huge advantage, on mellow trails terrain with modern geometry sometimes it is impossible to get far enough forward.


Not necessarily. Even on the flat turning section of Barel's cornering video, he's back on the bike. On DS courses, the turns are barely downhill...and the weight is back. Remember, you're CG is in your abdomen, which is slightly ahead of the BB, and closer to the back than the front, while in the traditional attack position.

On a properly fitted bike, that is.

Get a bike that's too long, and you have to struggle to move forward, which is why DS bikes are short and their butts are well behind the saddle. On a bike from the dark ages, your weight is either too far forward thanks to the long stem, or the bars are way out front which makes it harder to manipulate the bike.



jazzanova said:


> Which Mondraker bike have you ridden?


To see what it's like, all you have to do is ride a bike a size or two too big. There's your ultra-long reach. While it's great for screaming down relatively open trails, it makes it harder to get up over the bars to pump the trail and places the bars too far forward for manipulating the bike, like when quickly leaning it into a turn.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think many vocal crusaders for long reach geometry don't have the skills to maximize the abilities of a normal mountain bike.


More wishful thinking?

By all means, show us your racing resume from this year.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> On DS courses, the turns are barely downhill...
> 
> Umm.. No?
> 
> ...


You finally said something that makes sense.



richde said:


> More wishful thinking?
> 
> By all means, show us your racing resume from this year.


I've been a middle of the pack racer since I started racing in '98. My skills are nowhere near elite, but I don't feel that a shorter stem or longer bike is going to make my bike more fun to ride. I might be faster on an enduro or downhill course, but who gives a crap? This long geometry takes a lot of the fun out of riding for me. Dual slalom bikes are short because they are easier to jump and pump. That's more fun than bombing a straight line.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

richde said:


> Not necessarily. Even on the flat turning section of Barel's cornering video, he's back on the bike. On DS courses, the turns are barely downhill...and the weight is back. Remember, you're CG is in your abdomen, which is slightly ahead of the BB, and closer to the back than the front, while in the traditional attack position.
> 
> On a properly fitted bike, that is.
> 
> ...


I did that. At 5'8.5" I have a large N3 with 35mm stem, which is actually a touch shorter on saddle to bars dimension than my medium Blur TRc with a 50mm stem. Both saddles slammed forward. I like the steep ST of the N3. If I went with a medium N3 I would have to run at least 65mm stem in order to get the same seated cockpit. I am debating to steal my works angleset from the TRc and use it to steepen the Ha on the N3 to 66.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

I am 5 10 and I ride a medium Pivot Mach 429 carbon with a 70mm stem and a medium Pivot Mach 6 carbon with an 80mm stem. I can barely ride these awful bikes with such long stems.  if I had an XL bike with a 10mm stem surely I could gap 75 foot jumps.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I've been a middle of the pack racer since I started racing in '98. My skills are nowhere near elite, but I don't feel that a shorter stem or longer bike is going to make my bike more fun to ride. I might be faster on an enduro or downhill course, but who gives a crap? This long geometry takes a lot of the fun out of riding for me. Dual slalom bikes are short because they are easier to jump and pump. That's more fun than bombing a straight line.


Depends on what you mean by "shorter stem and longer bike." If you just want to concentrate on something stupidly long like the Mondraker, you're really not doing anything other than pointing out that sometimes too much of a good thing becomes bad. But the last thing that it proves is that slightly longer is bad.

I think many bikes have gone overboard with the reach, but a shorter stem DOES help with overall bike handling because it's easier to get over the bars and throw the bike into a turn.

Without a current impressive race resume, who are you to say who's talented and who isn't?


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

On the last page , that diagram showing old vs new geo , arguing that short stems cause the front wheel to wash? - if that's the body position you're in riding tech and corners in 2015 I can see why it's not working well for you.....hint - it has nothing to do with stem length.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> I am 5 10 and I ride a medium Pivot Mach 429 carbon with a 70mm stem and a medium Pivot Mach 6 carbon with an 80mm stem. I can barely ride these awful bikes with such long stems.  if I had an XL bike with a 10mm stem surely I could gap 75 foot jumps.


Have you tried a large with a shorter stem?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Not necessarily. Even on the flat turning section of Barel's cornering video, he's back on the bike. On DS courses, the turns are barely downhill...and the weight is back. Remember, you're CG is in your abdomen, which is slightly ahead of the BB, and closer to the back than the front, while in the traditional attack position.


I think you are splitting hairs here. I think that both of can agree that when cornering you start with your weight on the front of the wheel and then move backwards as the corner progresses to stabilize the rear of the bike to maximize exit speed.

Watching Barrels videos I can't help but feel that he was riding a bit in the back seat to emphasis getting low in turn. I think if he was to hit those turns at full speed you would see him a bit further forward on the bike.

What is your racing/riding background? XC, Enduro, Gravity. Don't be humble, I get the feeling you are pretty competent.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

LMN said:


> I think you are splitting hairs here. I think that both of can agree that when cornering you start with your weight on the front of the wheel and then move backwards as the corner progresses to stabilize the rear of the bike to maximize exit speed.
> 
> Watching Barrels videos I can't help but feel that he was riding a bit in the back seat to emphasis getting low in turn. I think if he was to hit those turns at full speed you would see him a bit further forward on the bike.
> 
> What is your racing/riding background? XC, Enduro, Gravity. Don't be humble, I get the feeling you are pretty competent.


The newer geometries seem to handle better from the back seat. Get to much weight on the front and you can get an oversteer followed quickly by a high side spitting your body off the bike.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> The newer geometries seem to handle better from the back seat. Get to much weight on the front and you can get an oversteer followed quickly by a high side spitting your body off the bike.


Hmm, interesting. I am going to take your word for that now.

Right now I have an Orbea Oiz, and a Santa Cruz 5010. Neither of those bike are what I would consider newer geometries. But on Friday I have an Orbea Rallon arriving, and that bike almost defines new geometry.

I will share my experience on it. Where I live, Kamloops, our trails are all about high speed cornering. If what you describe is true, then I should expect some high sides.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> The newer geometries seem to handle better from the back seat. Get to much weight on the front and you can get an oversteer followed quickly by a high side spitting your body off the bike.


Do you think short chain-stays are the culprit?

I have always loved the feel of short chain-stay bikes, they are playful but I think I am faster on a bike with longer chain stays. I find that on a bike with short chains I struggle with oversteer on corner exit.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

So at 24 pages what have we learned?


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> The newer geometries seem to handle better from the back seat. Get to much weight on the front and you can get an oversteer followed quickly by a high side spitting your body off the bike.


They'll do that if you insist on riding them like an older geometry bike. If you ride them with more lean and less handlebar steering they're pretty damn hard to high side. On my Norco Range I've had my head well in front of the bars with the bike in a full oversteer drift at 50 km/h or so, when the tires caught the bike stayed upright just fine. In fact it's far easier to control a drift on the Range than it is on old geometry bikes; those ones go from drift to washout and/or high side real fast so if you're not on the ball you're going to lose some skin. With bikes such as the Range or Banshee Rune, you can oversteer the bike and hold a drift pretty much forever and still recover as long as you have it leaned over far enough.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

LMN said:


> Right now I have an Orbea Oiz, and a Santa Cruz 5010. Neither of those bike are what I would consider newer geometries. But on Friday I have an Orbea Rallon arriving, and that bike almost defines new geometry.
> 
> I will share my experience on it. Where I live, Kamloops, our trails are all about high speed cornering. If what you describe is true, then I should expect some high sides.


Nice, when they make the Rallon in carbon, I will be really tempted. The geometry looks great. Looking forward to hear what you think.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Depends on what you mean by "shorter stem and longer bike." If you just want to concentrate on something stupidly long like the Mondraker, you're really not doing anything other than pointing out that sometimes too much of a good thing becomes bad. But the last thing that it proves is that slightly longer is bad.
> 
> I think many bikes have gone overboard with the reach, but a shorter stem DOES help with overall bike handling because it's easier to get over the bars and throw the bike into a turn.
> 
> Without a current impressive race resume, who are you to say who's talented and who isn't?


I think that the change in characteristics between the new and current geometry is more linear than variable. A small increase in reach will show small changes, while a large increase in reach will make large changes in handling. I've found what is ideal for me, and even a little bit longer reach changes geometry in ways that I don't care for. You don't have to race to be a talented rider or know what geometry is most appropriate for you. I'm not saying I'm a great rider, and I haven't said that you aren't. I'm just saying that a good rider can ride either geometry to its maximum benefits, which would be different on different trails and courses.

People are saying that a bike with a 35mm stem and an inch longer reach will always be better for every rider in every situation than a bike with a 60mm stem and an inch shorter reach, and that is absolutely not true.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Have you tried a large with a shorter stem?


Yes. The large felt too rangy for me. It had a 50mm stem IIRC. My thought is a trail/AM bike should be a tad more nimble / playful feeling than an XC / trail bike. If I had to choose a SINGLE bike I "may" have gotten a large since I am right between both sizes. But I have two amazing bikes for different purposes. With the 80 mm stem on the M6 (came standard with the bike) I am able to achieve the same cockpit measurements as the 429 with a 70mm stem so I can get a consistent cockpit feel (as well as the rest of my fit) with a more dynamic bike with more travel underneath me.

Incidentally I have the M6 setup as an aggressive trail bike with a 150 Fox 34 vs the Fox 36 that comes with these bikes nowadays. My riding consists of equal balance of up and down.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

SCJG said:


> On the last page , that diagram showing old vs new geo , arguing that short stems cause the front wheel to wash? - if that's the body position you're in riding tech and corners in 2015 I can see why it's not working well for you.....hint - it has nothing to do with stem length.


The illustration was meant to show all things being equal, that forward geometry actually puts you further behind the contact patch on the front wheel. If you have identical attack positions on both bikes you will still have the ability to weight the front tire easier.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> i think that the change in characteristics between the new and current geometry is more linear than variable. A small increase in reach will show small changes, while a large increase in reach will make large changes in handling. I've found what is ideal for me, and even a little bit longer reach changes geometry in ways that i don't care for. You don't have to race to be a talented rider or know what geometry is most appropriate for you. I'm not saying i'm a great rider, and i haven't said that you aren't. I'm just saying that a good rider can ride either geometry to its maximum benefits, which would be different on different trails and courses.
> 
> People are saying that a bike with a 35mm stem and an inch longer reach will always be better for every rider in every situation than a bike with a 60mm stem and an inch shorter reach, and that is absolutely not true.


^^^^^^This


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> So at 24 pages what have we learned?


I'm not 100% sure why, but this made me ehl oh ehl


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think that the change in characteristics between the new and current geometry is more linear than variable. A small increase in reach will show small changes, while a large increase in reach will make large changes in handling. I've found what is ideal for me, and even a little bit longer reach changes geometry in ways that I don't care for. You don't have to race to be a talented rider or know what geometry is most appropriate for you. I'm not saying I'm a great rider, and I haven't said that you aren't. I'm just saying that a good rider can ride either geometry to its maximum benefits, which would be different on different trails and courses.
> 
> People are saying that a bike with a 35mm stem and an inch longer reach will always be better for every rider in every situation than a bike with a 60mm stem and an inch shorter reach, and that is absolutely not true.


1. You were the one referring to "less talented riders," so don't back away from it now.

2. This thread was about why stems were super long (135mm), not exclusively advocating 35mm stems which are barely available.

A good rider can ride anything, within reason, but that's not the point or the question. It's about what people in general can benefit from. I've never ridden a bike with a 35mm stem, but I bet it's a much smaller change than from the old XC idea of 135mm to the newer use of 100mm stems on XC bikes and them shrinking from there.

I rode two bikes at Interbike yesterday with virtually identical reaches back to back on identical trails, the one with the shorter stem (50 vs 100mm) was easier to maneuver. It was no contest. They both climbed about the same, just that one of them was easier, and therefore better, to ride in technical situations.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

LMN said:


> Do you think short chain-stays are the culprit?
> 
> I have always loved the feel of short chain-stay bikes, they are playful but I think I am faster on a bike with longer chain stays. I find that on a bike with short chains I struggle with oversteer on corner exit.


It's all of it. It's steeper seat tubes, longer front ends, shorter stems, better suspension and wider rims. The mountain bike is evolving. The mountain bike industry was like a teenager that lived with its roadie parents. It finally grew up, moved out and left all of its road bike roots behind. Now it's a mature mountain bike industry, all on its own?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> 1. You were the one referring to "less talented riders," so don't back away from it now.
> 
> I'm not backing away from anything. I said if you can't ride a bike with older geometry without going over the bars or understand the benefits to the different geometries, then you don't have enough experience or skills to maximize either geometry. I never said I was an elite mountain biker.
> 
> ...


So one person found it better on one trail. That does not cover the spectrum of riders on every trail. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Are you just trolling, or are you seriously this clueless?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm not backing away from anything. I said if you can't ride a bike with older geometry without going over the bars or understand the benefits to the different geometries, then you don't have enough experience or skills to maximize either geometry. I never said I was an elite mountain biker.


If you don't realize the impact that confidence, and how bike setup affects it, impacts how you ride, you should never, ever, talk about a lack of experience other than when referring to yourself.

This is a thing that the vast majority of people have realized, people who get paid to design bicycles and components. I'll trust them, thanks.



mountainbiker24 said:


> who's backing down? The new super short, 35mm stems have been referenced multiple times in this thread, many posters claiming they are better than the older stems. It doesn't matter if it's 90 or 130, there is a place for it.


You need to re-read the OP. He said something along the lines of "down to 35mm." Not that everyone should use super stubby stems. That's a strawman of your own creation so you can wave your cane at the damn kids.

There is no place for a 130mm stem on a mountain bike, that's why you don't find them. Like I said before, I'll trust the experts.

YOU were the one that said others have a lack of experience, which is the dumbest thing one can ever say on the internet unless you're the first one to discover something. Do you really think that everyone but you just started riding last week? Did it seem plausible to you that nobody has experienced the evolution of bike design and came to the realization of "hey, this is a little better?"



mountainbiker24 said:


> No crap. The point is that everybody rides different trails with different intentions. This means that different people will have different geometries that work for them.


Like I said, it isn't a question of someone making something work. It's whether something works better...and super long stems DO NOT WORK BETTER. That's why you don't find them on new bikes anymore outside of a niche market that will always be a niche. It's not because nobody can ride like you, it's because they have an open mind and aren't so invested in what they have right now that they are simply unwilling that things might change for the better.



mountainbiker24 said:


> So one person found it better on one trail. That does not cover the spectrum of riders on every trail. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Are you just trolling, or are you seriously this clueless?


I can guarantee you that nobody will find it easier to maneuver a bike with a really long stem. Nobody. Anyone can do it, but not as well as with one that isn't stupidly long.

I know there's a strong faction of mennonites on MTBR that like to run their bikes the same way they've always been setup and claim that everything that they refuse to adopt is a crutch for less talented riders. Of course, these people are also the first ones to say that they never use any sort of objective measurement for these mystical superior skills that they claim to have, they just know it. They never fail to be critical of others, yet are amazingly forgiving of themselves.

Know what...most of the time they're wrong.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

F-it. I give up. I'm going to go work on my bike, and I'm going to enjoy my ride tomorrow. I hope you do the same.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

richde said:


> There is no place for a 130mm stem on a mountain bike, that's why you don't find them. Like I said before, I'll trust the experts.


There is a place for a 130mm stem, between the steerer and handlbars. A few reasons why someone would choose one:
-Run a smaller, lighter frame
-With a Shorter quicker wheelbase
-Putting more weight and body english on the front wheel 
-Making a bike fit ( not everyone just brushes aside old-school affordable steel bikes like trash )

Here is Julien Absalon's set-up, looks about 120-130 to me.

It's preference. The point is stems were never too long. Bad Mother Chuckers had/have a blast riding them, so everything was/is alright.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^ There is a place for 130mm stems. On bikes that were designed for a 130mm stem, + or - a few millimeters to fit the rider. The OP asked, "Why Have Stems Been Too Damn Long?" Well, that's you answer. Because the bikes were designed for it and now, thank God, they are designed for short stems. And, there is absolutely no negative side effects to that. People seem to forget, that you can't take a bike that fits a rider with a 130mm stem, change the stem to 35mm and expect the bike to fit. It just won't happen.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ There is a place for 130mm stems. On bikes that were designed for a 130mm stem, + or - a few millimeters to fit the rider. The OP asked, "Why Have Stems Been Too Damn Long?" Well, that's you answer. Because the bikes were designed for it and now, thank God, they are designed for short stems. And, there is absolutely no negative side effects to that. People seem to forget, that you can't take a bike that fits a rider with a 130mm stem, change the stem to 35mm and expect the bike to fit. It just won't happen.


There are some side effects to running a super short stem, even on a bike designed for it. They aren't noticeable to everybody, apparently, and for most people in most situations the short stem/long reach is better. That doesn't mean that there aren't limitations imposed by increasing reach and wheelbase.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

For those that say you shouldn't, couldn't, ought not to, guarantee no one can handle a bike better with longer stems, this post is just for you.

Schurters Bike:










Absalon's Bike:










Neff's bike:










Kulhavy's bike:










Fluckiger's bike:










Vogel"s bike:










Not just a few casual riders - these folks ride all the time and are the best at what they do with anything they want available to them from their respective sponsors.

With their careers on the line every time they ride, why would they choose such an "inferior setup?"


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

richde said:


> If you don't realize the impact that confidence, and how bike setup affects it, impacts how you ride, you should never, ever, talk about a lack of experience other than when referring to yourself.
> 
> This is a thing that the vast majority of people have realized, people who get paid to design bicycles and components. I'll trust them, thanks.
> 
> ...


Schurter, Absilon, Neff, Kulavy, Flukiger, and Vogel disagree.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> For those that say you shouldn't, couldn't, ought not to, guarantee no one can handle a bike better with longer stems, this post is just for you.
> 
> Schurters Bike:
> 
> ...


the are good bike handlers inspite of their set up. not because of it. There really is a difference also they are about out right overall speed, which has more to do with climbing than going down always have and always will.

I also suspect there is a good deal of tradition based parts picks going on in XC racing.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the are good bike handlers inspite of their set up. not because of it. There really is a difference also they are about out right overall speed, which has more to do with climbing than going down always have and always will.
> 
> I also suspect there is a good deal of tradition based parts picks going on in XC racing.


In spite of their setup not because of it. Really? And you know that how? And the going down comment is also silly. Schurter wins his races on the downhills. That guy just murders technical downhill stuff many of you on a 5 inch travel trail bike would be walking down.

These pics of actual world champion XC MTB riders pose a problem for those who have declared longer reach shorter stem geometry is best for everyone, for all riding, all the time. Admit it folks, you are just wrong.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> In spite of their setup not because of it. Really? And you know that how? And the going down comment is also silly. Schurter wins his races on the downhills. That guy just murders technical downhill stuff many of you on a 5 inch travel trail bike would be walking down.
> 
> These pics of actual world champion XC MTB riders pose a problem for those who have declared longer reach shorter stem geometry is best for everyone, for all riding, all the time. Admit it folks, you are just wrong.


If you want to actually ride you on actual steep terrain bike then its not wrong. Nino is amoung the best climbers in the world. Some days he is faster than everyone else at climbing.

Their set up would not be any fun around here. If it fun around you then by all means run it. I would bet really hard money that I can find plenty of trails with 20 miles of my house that me being a hack would easily and handly beat a WC XC pro, on their XC bike going down. Going up I am no where near their fitness. It would be curious test to have them go up on modern tricked out 25lb 140 travel bike with a short stem and see how much slower they actually are.

I am hack Cat 1 XC guy, I suck, there are people far better than me around here, but I truly think when the trail reaches a certain level of steepness and/or amount of pump hole and chatter that the bike does start to matter a ton. I would rather ride it in comfort, then be scared out of my mind. I spent 4 years on a Anthem X 29er size M with a 90mm stem and that thing actually demolished my confidence and made me slower on anything down steep enough to matter.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the are good bike handlers inspite of their set up. not because of it. There really is a difference also they are about out right overall speed, which has more to do with climbing than going down always have and always will.
> 
> I also suspect there is a good deal of tradition based parts picks going on in XC racing.


They have the optimal setup for what they are doing, conversely pro downhillers have their rigs optimized for what they do. Most weekend warriors ride something in between. Horses for courses.

I think the theory about xc racers and tradition based parts is bunk, they are constantly looking for any possible advantage.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Here is the one of the steeper DH style trails in the area.

https://www.strava.com/segments/10484426?filter=overall

1:20 on 160/140 Giant Trance size Large with 35mm stem.

3:40 on 100/100 Giant Anthem X 29er size M with 90mm stem.

1:40 on 140 front Kona Honzo Size M(basically same size as size L trance) with 35mm stem.

Still 20 second behind a Pro DHer running a DH bike and who has **** ton more skill than me. Geometery matters for me. I must suck but I have vastly more fun, and I can go faster on the bigger longer bike.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> If you want to actually ride you on actual steep terrain bike then its not wrong. Nino is amoung the best climbers in the world. Some days he is faster than everyone else at climbing.
> 
> Their set up would not be any fun around here. If it fun around you then by all means run it. I would bet really hard money that I can find plenty of trails with 20 miles of my house that me being a hack would easily and handly beat a WC XC pro, on their XC bike going down. Going up I am no where near their fitness. It would be curious test to have them go up on modern tricked out 25lb 140 travel bike with a short stem and see how much slower they actually are.
> 
> I am hack Cat 1 XC guy, I suck, there are people far better than me around here, but I truly think when the trail reaches a certain level of steepness and/or amount of pump hole and chatter that the bike does start to matter a ton. I would rather ride it in comfort, then be scared out of my mind. I spent 4 years on a Anthem X 29er size M with a 90mm stem and that thing actually demolished my confidence and made me slower on anything down steep enough to matter.


Nino ripping it up in Utah - on a bike with what some of you consider a long stem.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> Here is the one of the steeper DH style trails in the area.
> 
> https://www.strava.com/segments/10484426?filter=overall
> 
> ...


You attribute these time differences on stem size? Look like completely different bikes to me.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

YEs ocmpletely different bike with 1 being old school steep head angle, short top tube, and the other 2 being modern slacked out and low All mountain bikes.

I own a size M and size L trance 275. 

I have never taken the size M up there as its now set up for my fiance but I have taken the size M at various other places and its not faster up or down for me even with 70-90mm stem.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> Nino ripping it up in Utah - on a bike with what some of you consider a long stem.


again the best rider doing something inspite of his set up. I can ski powder on 165 SL skis but there is no way I am as good on those, as I am on my 186cm reverse side and reverse camber skis.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

You have never ridden with a good world cup XC pro have you? You know that Enduro you got crushed at last year, unless you are placing in the top 5 in the Pro-category at that race you would get smoked by one of them on an XC bike with a 130mm stem and rigid post.

The level of skill and ability to ride an XC bike fast downhill is stunning. I am a good descender; back in the day prior to some eye opening crashes, I was a very good DH racer. When I ride with WC XC pro's, which I do a lot, and I am on my trail bike which has a short stem, dropper post, grippy tires I am struggling and sometimes failing to keep up with them on the downs. And that is on some rather technical descents in Squamish.



BushwackerinPA said:


> If you want to actually ride you on actual steep terrain bike then its not wrong. Nino is amoung the best climbers in the world. Some days he is faster than everyone else at climbing.
> 
> Their set up would not be any fun around here. If it fun around you then by all means run it. I would bet really hard money that I can find plenty of trails with 20 miles of my house that me being a hack would easily and handly beat a WC XC pro, on their XC bike going down. Going up I am no where near their fitness. It would be curious test to have them go up on modern tricked out 25lb 140 travel bike with a short stem and see how much slower they actually are.
> 
> I am hack Cat 1 XC guy, I suck, there are people far better than me around here, but I truly think when the trail reaches a certain level of steepness and/or amount of pump hole and chatter that the bike does start to matter a ton. I would rather ride it in comfort, then be scared out of my mind. I spent 4 years on a Anthem X 29er size M with a 90mm stem and that thing actually demolished my confidence and made me slower on anything down steep enough to matter.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> YEs ocmpletely different bike with 1 being old school steep head angle, short top tube, and the other 2 being modern slacked out and low All mountain bikes.
> 
> I own a size M and size L trance 275.
> 
> I have never taken the size M up there as its now set up for my fiance but I have taken the size M at various other places and its not faster up or down for me even with 70-90mm stem.


Your 100mm travel bike is clearly an XC bike while the other is a trail bike. Your confidence level also is dependent on fork travel, rear shock travel, head tube angle, etc.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

LMN said:


> You have never ridden with a good world cup XC pro have you? You know that Enduro you got crushed at last year, unless you are placing in the top 5 in the Pro-category at that race you would get smoked by one of them on an XC bike with a 130mm stem and rigid post.
> 
> The level of skill and ability to ride an XC bike fast downhill is stunning. I am a good descender; back in the day prior to some eye opening crashes, I was a very good DH racer. When I ride with WC XC pro's, which I do a lot, and I am on my trail bike which has a short stem, dropper post, grippy tires I am struggling and sometimes failing to keep up with them on the downs. And that is on some rather technical descents in Squamish.


you know that enduro you were not at....

you did not see me go under the over head high course tape 4 times in the course. Get lost in a campground because it did not have enough signage and then develop a weird clunking noise on my last run. a F UCKING single speed meaning I could nt pedal to make up time. I literally entered for shits and giggle as the only person 2 use a single speed and one of 2 hardtails. No preride of the where the taped had been placed, and no idea of what I was doing.






my fork started making that noise, and I stopped several time and walked some section because well, I am not getting paid, and turning a 900 dollar fork into a brick were not my goals of that race.

MY bet still stands with you LMN. 1k plus travel expense if you can beat me down the trail you said looked easy on a bike with an XC height seat post. according to the enduro I must suck and it would be an easy way to make 1000k in about 5 minutes if am that ****. So IMO either put up or shut up.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> again the best rider doing something inspite of his set up. I can ski powder on 165 SL skis but there is no way I am as good on those, as I am on my 186cm reverse side and reverse camber skis.


That "in spite of his setup" comment is strange. You act like Nino should be consulting you as he apparently has no clue what he is doing. Nobody is forcing him to ride that setup and he apparently favors a stem longer than 35 mm. This (and the 5 other world champion XC riders I cited) completely destroys the argument that shorter stems are always better.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> Your 100mm travel bike is clearly an XC bike while the other is a trail bike. Your confidence level also is dependent on fork travel, rear shock travel, head tube angle, etc.


why am I more confident on the L trance with 35mm stem over the M trance with a 35mm stem, or M trance with a 70-90mm stem then? Its the same bike just a different size.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> That "in spite of his setup" comment is strange. You act like Nino should be consulting you as he apparently has no clue what he is doing. Nobody is forcing him to ride that setup and he apparently favors a stem longer than 35 mm. This (and the 5 other world champion XC riders I cited) completely destroys the argument that shorter stems are always better.


I think that Nino is damn fast down a hill with his set up, but he could even be faster down the hill with another set up. I never said he would be faster around a complete XC course just faster down the hill. He has never tried and has said quote "XC racer do not use droppers because we just move around the seat" instead of "I have actually tested a dropper post and I found it to be slower" one would be legit reason to not use a dropper, one is just tradition.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> you know that enduro you were not at....
> 
> you did not see me go under the over head high course tape 4 times in the course. Get lost in a campground because it did not have enough signage and then develop a weird clunking noise on my last run. a F UCKING single speed meaning I could nt pedal to make up time. I literally entered for shits and giggle as the only person 2 use a single speed and one of 2 hardtails. No preride of the where the taped had been placed, and no idea of what I was doing.
> 
> ...


Being how many mechanicals you have remind me not to heed equipment advice from you


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> Being how many mechanicals you have remind me not to heed equipment advice from you


I have had one in race ever. Curious you know what caused the problem? Its obviously fixed by now.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I think that Nino is damn fast down a hill with his set up, but he could even be faster down the hill with another set up. I never said he would be faster around a complete XC course just faster down the hill. He has never tried and has said quote "XC racer do not use droppers because we just move around the seat" instead of "I have actually tested a dropper post and I found it to be slower" one would be legit reason to not use a dropper, one is just tradition.


The arrogance is strong in you. "He could be faster..." Says you? Is there some scientific peer reviewed publication that demonstrates longer reach and shorter stems are the cure all to MTB in all situations? Again, not just Nino - I posted all of the leading UCI ranked XC (including Neff) riders and 100 percent of them run longer stems. So 6 riders who are better than you prefer longer stems.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

I once tried bike with a short wheel base and found it almost unridable due to how twitchy it was.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> The arrogance is strong in you. "He could be faster..." Says you? Is there some scientific peer reviewed publication that demonstrates longer reach and shorter stems are the cure all to MTB in all situations? Again, not just Nino - I posted all of the leading UCI ranked XC (including Neff) riders and 100 percent of them run longer stems. So 6 riders who are better than you prefer longer stems.


says the fact that they have never tried anything different.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> says the fact that they have never tried anything different.


Are you friends with some of these pros? I'm not but a dollar and a donut says they try different rides quite often, just not on race day.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a pro wouldn't be faster downhill on a downhill oriented bike but it seems a little nuts to think they could do a lap faster if only they would embrace new technology.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you friends with some of these pros? I'm not but a dollar and a donut says they try different rides quite often, just not on race day.
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing that a pro wouldn't be faster downhill on a downhill oriented bike but it seems a little nuts to think they could do a lap faster if only they would embrace new technology.


I never said that. I am not friend with them ,but I have talked with some of them. Almost none of them have tried 'radical" setups. The last guy who did try some really radical things was Craig, but he is not fit enough to compete with the elite of the elite.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> The arrogance is strong in you. "He could be faster..." Says you? Is there some scientific peer reviewed publication that demonstrates longer reach and shorter stems are the cure all to MTB in all situations? Again, not just Nino - I posted all of the leading UCI ranked XC (including Neff) riders and 100 percent of them run longer stems. So 6 riders who are better than you prefer longer stems.


Let me ask you. Do most riders ride for fun or to win XC races? Racers bikes are setup to maximize power output. XC races are won on climbs. 
XC bikes in general use shorter reach and wheelbase with longer stems. They are not setup for DH speed or maximizing fun and confidence of an average Joe riding on his local trails couple times a week.

I will agree with the statement that the long stems have their place on some of these XC racing machines. 
On the other side it is silly to compare the XC racers to regular trail riders on their trail bikes, which benefit from maximizing the overall riding confidence. XC geometry with long stem will not deliver that.
So for most riders short bikes with long stems will be inferior in comparison with the opposite setup by far.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Staying on the course is part of being a good racer. Lots of people do races blind and stay on course.

I have nothing to prove. I know I am a good descender, I have race results to prove it. When I do a gravity race I usually place well. You on the other hand.....

How about this. Go do another race, post a half-decent result, then you will not be mocked (as badly) when brag about your descending skills.

Just to give you a reference of a trail bike vs. XC bike for an XC racer. My wife has an Orbea Rallon set-up super sweet: 36s, Minions, dropper post. It is an awesome bike. On one our local fairly aggressive descents she has done both hot runs on the Rallon and her XC bike.
3:11 for Rallon
3:16 for Oiz (XC bike)

Just to give you an idea on how fast that is, most of the Pro-DH guys in town are around 3:00 minutes for the same descent and some of those guys have gone to worlds for DH.



BushwackerinPA said:


> you know that enduro you were not at....
> 
> you did not see me go under the over head high course tape 4 times in the course. Get lost in a campground because it did not have enough signage and then develop a weird clunking noise on my last run. a F UCKING single speed meaning I could nt pedal to make up time. I literally entered for shits and giggle as the only person 2 use a single speed and one of 2 hardtails. No preride of the where the taped had been placed, and no idea of what I was doing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> says the fact that they have never tried anything different.


Nino Schurter was riding a big bike with a dropper and a short stem when he laid the wood to a MaxiAvalanche field in Flims a few years back.

Competitors in that race include Remy Absalon, who won Megavalanche for the fourth time this year.

Does that qualify as "never tried anything different"?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

I have no idea. Perhaps you prefer a longer, larger bike for your riding style and terrain you ride in most? But a 4cm difference is quite massive in terms of geo - is your medium bike's reach 4cm shorter?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Let me ask you. Do most riders ride for fun or to win XC races? Racers bikes are setup to maximize power output. XC races are won on climbs.
> XC bikes in general use shorter reach and wheelbase with longer stems. They are not setup for DH speed or maximizing fun and confidence of an average Joe riding on his local trails couple times a week.
> 
> I will agree with the statement that the long stems have their place on some of these XC racing machines.
> ...


Depends and it is more subtle than that.

Those of us that are obsessed with these topics as we are on this forum probably know their cockpit setup, seat height measurements, etc. that work and are preferable to their style of riding based on miles of finding the right setup.

I know for example that I have a preferred cockpit setup of 17" from the center of the stem to the tip of the seat. I also know that I prefer a cockpit setup of 21" from the center of the bars to the tip of the seat. My seat height is a smidgen under 30" measured from the center of the BB to the top of the seat for correct pedaling position.

I ride a medium Pivot Mach 6 with an 80mm stem which nails my fit dead on. If I rode a large, that would earn me 1.24 cm in reach. To compensate for that, I would then shorten my stem to ~ 65mm - still too long in your eyes, right? Size up you say, right? Ok, I could try an XL Mach 6 and the reach would then gain me 2.36 cm. So now I could shorten my stem to 55mm which apparently is still too long for you. See how silly this is? You are advocating I jump into a bike that is two sizes too big for me and base my fit around an acceptable < 50mm stem length. Complete nonsense.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> says the fact that they have never tried anything different.


Again, 6 (and probably many more) ride with longer stems. Strange, but think they probably know what they are doing. You like shorter stems, that's terrific. Just try not to wash out around corners due to your weight being so much off the front tire.


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

lol, a short stem doesn't have to mean that your front is light. that topic has been beat as much as 26er's are a dead breed or short cs's are bad for climbing. come on, go ride.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> Depends and it is more subtle than that.
> 
> Those of us that are obsessed with these topics as we are on this forum probably know their cockpit setup, seat height measurements, etc. that work and are preferable to their style of riding based on miles of finding the right setup.
> 
> ...


Oh man. 
OK. 
Mach6 has the old geometry, it is a short reach/WB bike. How it was mentioned several times by me or others here, you can't just slam a short stem on a bike not designed for it. 
On this kind of bike the ST and HT length will grow so much that a correct fit will be almost impossible to achieve.
Just like your mach6, ST will go on medium to large from 44.45cm to 48.26cm. The large will not allow to run a 150mm dropper in my case, even though I like the reach of a large better than the medium. 
Still, I would rather have a large with a 125mm dropper than a medium with a > 60mm stem.

On the other side on a bike designed with long TT/reach and ST/HT short enough one can easily run a short 35mm stem.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

What the pros use and how they setup their bikes is mostly irrelevant to us mortals. I've been fortunate enough to ride with a number of pros over the years including world champions in XC and DH; the skill gap between even a very good rider and a world champ is incomprehensible.

I'm a decent rider, I have the skills to ride world cup DH courses on a 4" travel hardtail, used to do that almost every weekend when I lived near Quebec. One of my friends has raced in world cups and world champs, she could dust me on any downhill even on an XC bike with sticky forks and skinny half bald tires. Back in the day she raced against Anne-Caroline Chausson among others and ACC did to her what she did to me, as in ACC was putting 2:30 gaps into her on a 5:30 course. 

Then there was the time when Chrissy Redden occasionally showed up for local group rides about half an hour from where I live. I accepted that I'd get blown away on the climbs but thought I'd have a shot of staying even or possibly closing the gaps on the downs. Nope. Got blown away on the downhills too.

The pros are way faster than we are and ride in ways that most of us can't really conceive of, their equipment needs are quite different from ours. Saying that Nino uses a long stem and tubular tires doesn't say anything about whether it's right for the average person. It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that it works for him in world cup XC races.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Oh man.
> OK.
> Mach6 has the old geometry, it is a short reach/WB bike. How it was mentioned several times by me or others here, you can't just slam a short stem on a bike not designed for it.
> On this kind of bike the ST and HT length will grow so much that it will are a correct fit almost impossible.
> ...


And my riding style is happier without a truck underneath me. My two Pivots are so dialed it isn't even funny. I have the slightly longer medium with 120/100 for XC / trail riding and a slightly smaller Medium Mach 6 (1cm less reach) 150/155 for more rugged terrain which usually includes lots of tight twisty stuff.

Pivot had maintained this geometry for their new version 2 M6 just released a few weeks ago and these bikes are insanely versatile.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> And my riding style is happier without a truck underneath me. My two Pivots are so dialed it isn't even funny. I have the slightly longer medium with 120/100 for XC / trail riding and a slightly smaller Medium Mach 6 (1cm less reach) 150/155 for more rugged terrain which usually includes lots of tight twisty stuff.
> 
> Pivot had maintained this geometry for their new version 2 M6 just released a few weeks ago and these bikes are insanely versatile.


Good for you. As long as you like your setup, who cares what others think.
I demoed the mach6 several times and liked it. But it was more than a year ago, before I had a chance to ride some longer bikes with shorter stems. My preferences have changed quite a bit.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Good for you. As long as you like your setup, who cares what others think.
> I demoed the mach6 several times and liked it. But it was more than a year ago, before I had a chance to ride some longer bikes with shorter stems. My preferences have changed quite a bit.


Exactly my sentiment. Ride what you like. Horses for courses. Those that say this or that size stem is best for everyone are silly.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> says the fact that they have never tried anything different.


How do you know this? Have you talked with any of them. Do you ride regularly with them?

I am good friends with at least a dozen world cup level XC racers.
I know more than I count.
I have coached 10.
My wife has won 2 XC world championships, and 11 XC worlds cup wins.

You could say I know what is going in the XC world.

Every single one of them has tried or owns a bike with "modern geometry." Every single one of them is marginally quicker downhill on their modern geometry bike, significantly slower uphill.

On their race bikes they still run long stems and rigid post. And on their XC bikes on all but the burliest trails they are faster downhill then 99% of riders.

You don't live that far from Windham NY. Head down do the XC loop see how you stack up on the descent. Here is the Strava segment:

https://www.strava.com/segments/7848743


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

All right, let's leave horses out of this. And I agree, what the pro's do is irrelevant to me. There's also that guy who rode his unicycle down a mountain in Iran, good for him irrelevant for me. I demoed a M6 and liked the suspension, but could not get a good fit on that bike. Medium was a bit cramped, I could not get the saddle forward enough, and if I moved up to large, the seat tube would have been too long. I have friends on them and they love em though. I was very surprised that they redesigned this bike and did not change it much, as most other bikes in this category have more reach.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> what the pro's do is irrelevant to me.


As it should be. Your not a racer, you don't set your bike up for race, and you don't have the skill set of a Professional racer. If you were given Nino's bike (which is custom built with super steep geometry) chances are you would quickly lose a lot of skin and give it back muttering death trap. There is no way that I would ever suggest that you would be happier on classic geometry.

When I am talking to a recreational rider about bike selection I really push the modern geometry. It is amazing ride and makes some burley trails comfortable. My "fun bike" has a 50mm stem and 66.5 degree head angle.

Cross country geometry still has a place in mountain biking. If you have developed the skills required to ride an XC bike then on the vast majority of trails it is superior. The thing is where it isn't superior it is terrifying, not a lot of people like being periodically terrified on their rides.

Mountain biking is about compromises:
"New Geometry" is superior on technical descents, and inferior just about everywhere else.
"Classic Geometry" is inferior on Technical descents, and superior just about everywhere else.

Decide what matters to you.

However, a recreational rider telling a world cup XC pro that their bike set-up is wrong is beyond arrogance. (I am not saying you are doing this BTW)


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the are good bike handlers inspite of their set up. not because of it. There really is a difference also they are about out right overall speed, which has more to do with climbing than going down always have and always will.
> 
> I also suspect there is a good deal of tradition based parts picks going on in XC racing.


Those stems are all around 100, you can tell by the photo of Nino's bike with the Garmin 510 mounted on the stem or by using the stem cap for scale. Different angles make them look longer.

Those are also extreme setups made for one purpose.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

LMN said:


> Cross country geometry still has a place in mountain biking. If you have developed the skills required to ride an XC bike then on the vast majority of trails it is superior. The thing is where it isn't superior it is terrifying, not a lot of people like being periodically terrified on their rides.


If you're talking about an XC race bike, you should refer to it as such.

XC race geometry is NOT superior on the "vast majority of trails." Otherwise, a bike with XC race geo, which isn't as extreme as some people are trying to make it, would be your "fun" bike.

Most people go out to ride and have fun at a moderate pace, both up and downhill, and you don't need to be stretched out to do it. The difference in climbing performance created by exclusively geometry is rarely, if ever, something that can even be sensed by the rider, only reflected by time. On the other hand, the difference in comfort and confidence is readily obvious. If we all wanted to have the **** scared out of us on a normal basis, we'd ride CX bikes on technical MTB trails.

I can guaran-****ing-tee it that if you went over to Nino's house and said, "Hey, let's go have some fun and ride around for a while," he wouldn't be choosing his Scale. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, and just like a DH bike is overkill on a non-lift accessed trail (although their main problem is gearing more than anything else), an XC race bike is erring too much to the other side.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

aerius said:


> What the pros use and how they setup their bikes is mostly irrelevant to us mortals. I've been fortunate enough to ride with a number of pros over the years including world champions in XC and DH; the skill gap between even a very good rider and a world champ is incomprehensible.
> 
> I'm a decent rider, I have the skills to ride world cup DH courses on a 4" travel hardtail, used to do that almost every weekend when I lived near Quebec. One of my friends has raced in world cups and world champs, she could dust me on any downhill even on an XC bike with sticky forks and skinny half bald tires. Back in the day she raced against Anne-Caroline Chausson among others and ACC did to her what she did to me, as in ACC was putting 2:30 gaps into her on a 5:30 course.
> 
> ...


True, except other posters were claiming that short stems were ALWAYS better. Please re-direct your comments to that side of the discussion. Thanks.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> All right, let's leave horses out of this. And I agree, what the pro's do is irrelevant to me. There's also that guy who rode his unicycle down a mountain in Iran, good for him irrelevant for me. I demoed a M6 and liked the suspension, but could not get a good fit on that bike. Medium was a bit cramped, I could not get the saddle forward enough, and if I moved up to large, the seat tube would have been too long. I have friends on them and they love em though. I was very surprised that they redesigned this bike and did not change it much, as most other bikes in this category have more reach.


Confused - if cockpit was too cramped, wouldn't you move your saddle back?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

richde said:


> Those stems are all around 100, you can tell by the photo of Nino's bike with the Garmin 510 mounted on the stem or by using the stem cap for scale. Different angles make them look longer.
> 
> Those are also extreme setups made for one purpose.


I don't see them as extreme setups at all. 70-100mm stems are pretty common place for years now.

As I said, it is incorrect to say that modern "forward" geometry is best for all conditions and all riders. This notion has now been officially debunked as I have provided 6 different riders who all ride with longer stems for riding terrain that is probably more akin to what most of us ride on.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richde said:


> XC race geometry is NOT superior on the "vast majority of trails." Otherwise, a bike with XC race geo, which isn't as extreme as some people are trying to make it, would be your "fun" bike.


I consider these to be my "fun" bikes. But I guess it's all personal preference. My slack, short stem, dropper post, lots of travel, full squish is also fun, but on gnarly trails. Do everyday riding I prefer my "fun" bikes.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

richde said:


> I can guaran-****ing-tee it that if you went over to Nino's house and said, "Hey, let's go have some fun and ride around for a while," he wouldn't be choosing his Scale.


I can't offer any similar iron-clad guarantee as you about Nino's preferences and habits, but find it interesting that you can. Kind of a summary for this whole thread.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

richde said:


> If you're talking about an XC race bike, you should refer to it as such.
> 
> XC race geometry is NOT superior on the "vast majority of trails." Otherwise, a bike with XC race geo, which isn't as extreme as some people are trying to make it, would be your "fun" bike.
> 
> ...


Nnnnnnnnnnnope.

Here is the video again with Schurter ripping it up in Utah on a trail bike with a long stem. I can guaran-%&*-ing tee you don't ride like him. Perhaps you need a longer stem?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> I don't see them as extreme setups at all. 70-100mm stems are pretty common place for years now.
> 
> As I said, it is incorrect to say that modern "forward" geometry is best for all conditions and all riders. This notion has now been officially debunked as I have provided 6 different riders who all ride with longer stems for riding terrain that is probably more akin to what most of us ride on.


Why do you keep insisting that XC pro setup is relevant to any average trail rider? You are comparing apples and oranges here. 
Let's forget this pro XC setup and focus on what is important and relevant to us.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Why do you keep insisting that XC pro setup is relevant to any average trail rider? You are comparing apples and oranges here.
> Let's forget this pro XC setup and focus on what is important and relevant to us.


Wrongly directed - you need to ask the question to those that have declared that short stems / long reach are universally better. I only provided an instance of where that isn't the case.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> Nnnnnnnnnnnope.
> 
> Here is the video again with Schurter ripping it up in Utah on a trail bike with a long stem. I can guaran-%&*-ing tee you don't ride like him. Perhaps you need a longer stem?


If you think that's a long stem, you're crazy. Again, the Garmin completely covers the stem to give you an actual idea of scale.

I ride Gooseberry a few times a year, btw and it's not *that* technical.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

richde said:


> If you think that's a long stem, you're crazy. Again, the Garmin completely covers the stem to give you an actual idea of scale.
> 
> I ride Gooseberry a few times a year, btw and it's not *that* technical.


Definitely not 50mm. That is a 70-80mm stem.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> I don't see them as extreme setups at all. 70-100mm stems are pretty common place for years now.
> 
> As I said, it is incorrect to say that modern "forward" geometry is best for all conditions and all riders. This notion has now been officially debunked as I have provided 6 different riders who all ride with longer stems for riding terrain that is probably more akin to what most of us ride on.


What makes them extreme is the flat bars and negative rise stems, since they're not as long as people claim them to be.

With at least a positive rise stem, they'd be much more friendly to ride.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> Confused - if cockpit was too cramped, wouldn't you move your saddle back?


Why would you move the saddle back to make more room? The saddle needs to be where I want it and the M6 is not the only bike in the world, so I bought something that fits. You can't fix too slack of a seat tube, too steep and you can get a set back post.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

LMN said:


> How do you know this? Have you talked with any of them. Do you ride regularly with them?
> 
> I am good friends with at least a dozen world cup level XC racers.
> I know more than I count.
> ...


windham is a 6 hour drive for me.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Circlip said:


> I can't offer any similar iron-clad guarantee as you about Nino's preferences and habits, but find it interesting that you can. Kind of a summary for this whole thread.


Think about it....what would you do? You'd use the right tool for the job if it was available, right?



SDMTB'er said:


> Definitely not 50mm. That is a 70-80mm stem.


Which is far from "long" and a typical size for most bikes. Read the OP, this thread is about the silliness of old designs with 135mm stems. That 100mm stems are now considered "long" is proof of that.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> Definitely not 50mm. That is a 70-80mm stem.


Nino rides for Scott. Scott Genius 700, which is a comparable bike to your M6 has the reach more than 1"longer on the medium. 
You could run a stem 30mm shorter on the Genius and had the same reach + stem measurement...
You are also in between M & L based on their recommended sizing so you could easily run a 35mm stem on a large Genius 700.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> Why do you keep insisting that XC pro setup is relevant to any average trail rider? You are comparing apples and oranges here.
> Let's forget this pro XC setup and focus on what is important and relevant to us.


Because the average "trail" rider is a rider on XC terrain, just riding it a lot slower?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

richde said:


> Think about it....what would you do? You'd use the right tool for the job if it was available, right?


I would choose a tool indeed. It's just that my choice may be different than yours.



richde said:


> Which is far from "long" and a typical size for most bikes. Read the OP, this thread is about the silliness of old designs with 135mm stems. That 100mm stems are now considered "long" is proof of that.


Arguing against 130mm stems is like arguing against the usefulness of a Super Monster fork. It's just not a relevant topic any more, and hasn't been for years.

Why Have Stems Been Too Damn Long? - Page 23- Mtbr.com


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> Nino rides for Scott. Scott Genius 700, which is a comparable bike to your M6 has the reach more than 1"longer on the medium.
> You could run a stem 30mm shorter on the Genius and had the same reach + stem measurement...
> You are also in between M & L based on their recommended sizing so you could easily run a 35mm stem on a large Genius 700.


I am in between Pivots M and L as well, but I didn't like the feeling of the larger frame. Horses for courses.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Because the average "trail" rider is a rider on XC terrain, just riding it a lot slower?


Not sure what your point is.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Arguing against 130mm stems is like arguing against the usefulness of a Super Monster fork. It's just not a relevant topic any more, and hasn't been for years.
> 
> Why Have Stems Been Too Damn Long? - Page 23- Mtbr.com


It is in this thread. The very idea that 100mm stems are considered "long" proves that point, and that only the most aggressive XC race bikes come with them is proof that people who build bikes for a living think that even that is a bit too much for general usage.

There's not THAT much difference between 100 and 80mm stems, just like there isn't between 70 and 50mm. Nobody is saying that everybody should be running 50mm stems, but there are plenty of people saying that stems longer than 100mm stems are better for everyone, and then turn around and use examples of 100mm stems (and accompanying aggressive setups) as proof of that.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ok. Let's all ride 150mm bikes with DHFs, 800mm bars and FF helmets on XC trails. And tell each other how we need more traction, a 64 degree HTA and maybe that new 160mm fork that just came out. And a 203 rear rotor to match that front, of course. That will solve everything. Totally. 

We'll all go pogo-sticking down the trail at 40% sag, and brag about all the gnar we encountered when we finally use all 90mm of travel left in the fork on the tiny step down right before the parking lot.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Ok. Let's all ride 150mm bikes with DHFs, 800mm bars and FF helmets on XC trails. And tell each other how we need more traction, a 64 degree HTA and maybe that new 160mm fork that just came out. And a 203 rear rotor to match that front, of course. That will solve everything. Totally.
> 
> We'll all go pogo-sticking down the trail at 40% sag, and brag about all the gnar we encountered when we finally use all 90mm of travel left in the fork on the tiny step down right before the parking lot.


^^Things that nobody said.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

SDMTB'er said:


> True, except other posters were claiming that short stems were ALWAYS better. Please re-direct your comments to that side of the discussion. Thanks.


I've been waiting for these guys to comment on this, myself... It seems that people admit that cross-country racers may benefit from and prefer a longish stem, but they don't count as mountain bikers? Is that not a mountain bike application?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I've been waiting for these guys to comment on this, myself... It seems that people admit that cross-country racers may benefit from and prefer a longish stem, but they don't count as mountain bikers? Is that not a mountain bike application?


How about this. If a bike geometry permits the use of a short stem while the optimal fit on the bike is maintained, 50mm and shorter stems will assure superior handling on most trails for most mountain bikers.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> I can guaran-****ing-tee it that if you went over to Nino's house and said, "Hey, let's go have some fun and ride around for a while," he wouldn't be choosing his Scale. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, and just like a DH bike is overkill on a non-lift accessed trail (although their main problem is gearing more than anything else), an XC race bike is erring too much to the other side.


I know a lot of world cup riders but I don't actually know Nino so I can't say. But when I ask my wife to go out for a rip, 9 time out 10 she grabs her XC bike, same is true for the dozen of other WC XC Pro's that I know and ride with.

I have mountain biked a lot of places. The prominent ones in the US
-Sedona, XC bike please.
-Moab, vast majority of trails XC bike please.
-St. George, XC bike please.
-Kingdom trails, XC bike please.
-all of Oregon, XC bike please.

That is personal preference. For most of riding in those area(s) my Oiz is superior to my 5010. Honestly, it is mainly about climbing. Climbing on the Oiz is so much easier then the 5010, staggeringly easier. The difference in descending capability is minimal.

But I don't disagree with all that you are saying. For the average rider, I certainly am not steering them towards an XC bike. But if you like a bike that makes you want to attack and push on even the easiest trails it is hard to beat an XC bike.

As I said I don't disagree with you the new geometry is amazing. And for the majority of riders they are going to be really happy on it. Doesn't change the fact that classic XC geometry (steep angles, long stems) is awesome and super fun on the majority of trails.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> How about this. If a bike geometry permits the use of a short stem while the optimal fit on the bike is maintained, 50mm and shorter stems will assure superior handling on most trails for most mountain bikers.


That is where I disagree.

It will give you superior handing on some technical sections of trails and inferior on others. You just have to decide which one you care more about.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> windham is a 6 hour drive for me.


And you expect me to travel for 15hrs each way to prove a point? Common.

Whistler is 6hrs for me, doesn't stop me going there for the weekend.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

SDMTB'er said:


> And my riding style is happier without a truck underneath me. My two Pivots are so dialed it isn't even funny. I have the slightly longer medium with 120/100 for XC / trail riding and a slightly smaller Medium Mach 6 (1cm less reach) 150/155 for more rugged terrain which usually includes lots of tight twisty stuff.


Just out of curiosity, what other bikes have you ridden that would be comparable to the M6 but with different geometry?
I sat on a a L M6 at a bike shop earlier this year and couldn't believe it was a L, felt smaller than my '10 5spot, and I wasn't in upsizing to get a better fit.

As someone who has zero interest anything other than having as much fun as possible, I'd prefer to be over-biked on an easier section of trail than under-biked on the steepest/fastest/most dangerous bits. I hear a lot of "a good rider can still be fast on a classic XC geo bike on the fast stuff" type comments followed by "modern geometry is going to be hard work on the tighter/technical trails". Well, newsflash, in the same sense that a good rider who is used to XC geo can handle his bike on fast/steep sections, a similarly capable rider who is used to a longer/slacker bike will be able to manipulate it through the slower stuff just as easily. Who will be quicker? Who cares. He who has the most fun, wins. Ride what suits you, but don't be afraid to try something new.

My wrist is nearly back to a state where I can ride again, and I'll be able to share my thoughts on going from an "old" 69/73* short-reach Turner to a 65.5/74* long-and-low Knolly Warden. Will it be too much bike? Absolutely yes for many of the trails I ride. But certainly not for all of them. Time will tell how I feel about this, and I don't find it hard to imagine going to something like an Endorphin/Scout/5010 for more of a balanced "all rounder". On the other hand, I don't find it hard to imagine the longer-travel and slacker Warden making me more confident and faster, and subsequently being worth every extra gram/kilojoule on the climbs...


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

LMN said:


> And you expect me to travel for 15hrs each way to prove a point? Common.
> 
> Whistler is 6hrs for me, doesn't stop me going there for the weekend.


except whistler is a great riding.

I have pretty freaking amazing riding 10 minutes away, and Burke is 50 minutes. there is no much reason to travel just to ride for fun when I havent rode every trail with in an hour of my house.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> How about this. If a bike geometry permits the use of a short stem while the optimal fit on the bike is maintained, 50mm and shorter stems will assure superior handling on most trails for most mountain bikers.


I can almost agree with that. Where I don't quite agree is that while they might be more stable and confidence-inspiring on most trails, I'm not convinced they handle better on most trails. They are probably faster for a lot of people, but some people may be faster with the older geometry. Even if for no other reason than it's what they are used to, where is the incentive to make the change? Most trails just don't push current geometry to the limits. Why make them even easier to ride if they aren't any faster?

I'm not sure how challenging a trail has to be to benefit from the new geometry, but I do know it depends a lot on the rider. I'm sure most riders would feel more comfortable and likely faster down steep, chunky terrain, so riders that focus on that will not see a downside.

I don't know how else to say that different riding styles and different trails benefit from different geometry, but there must be some way to communicate that without sounding condescending. I can see the benefits, but I strongly disagree that either or any setup is better for everybody everywhere. Whether most benefit or not is impossible to say, and it's probably a waste of time to speculate unless you're trying to sell bikes. At least some people prefer a slightly more conventional geometry for a variety of reasons, and they are all valid.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> windham is a 6 hour drive for me.


Can you see Russia from your house?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

LMN said:


> ...But if you like a bike that makes you want to attack and push on even the easiest trails it is hard to beat an XC bike...
> 
> ...As I said I don't disagree with you the new geometry is amazing. And for the majority of riders they are going to be really happy on it. Doesn't change the fact that classic XC geometry (steep angles, long stems) is awesome and super fun on the majority of trails...


Ya, I agree. For me its all about fun, and this old Bonty's quicker than quick geo makes trails like this a blast to ride.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

I just bought a 135mm stem...oh nos!

i must admit, I'm really stuggling to get used to my new bike, in fast sections, yes i'm fast than my HT, but in twisty stuff, there's no comparison, I'm much faster and more comfortable on mt HT. Partly thats because I'm more used to it, but a lot is the slow tight corners, where I find the older HT (both of them) really shine, they are just so more nimble you just turn and go, not having to lean it over or heave it around.
So far anyway, time will tell.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^ It takes time to adjust. Eventually, you'll go faster everywhere.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> Ya, I agree. For me its all about fun, and this old Bonty's quicker than quick geo makes trails like this a blast to ride.
> 
> View attachment 1016248
> 
> ...


Yeah, also it depends on what type of trails you are riding, that(ose) picture look really nice, not particulalry hard, but jsut a nice fun place to be, I liek thaose sorts of trails, don't mind something rougher, but am not looking at all to be doing things with big drops and crazy hucks.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ It takes time to adjust. Eventually, you'll go faster everywhere.


There is also the issue that i'm getting fitter (still not anywhere as fit...or as skilled as I was 15-20 years ago) so every ride I've been getting faster, so that squews my persoanl results a bit.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Nino's bike at Interbike. I can see what length the stem is when I go back in the morning.:cornut:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ It takes time to adjust. Eventually, you'll go faster everywhere.


Nope. Most places, maybe, but definitely not everywhere. Also, why is faster always better? Does everybody just ride as fast as they can all the time? That doesn't sound fun to me.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> Can you see Russia from your house?


I can see Canada if drive or wlak up a hill.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

B.S.S.D anyone? ;-P


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Sooo...Nino runs a 90mm stem.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> Sooo...Nino runs a 90mm stem.


Seems normal enough for a modern XC rig.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

RS VR6 said:


> Sooo...Nino runs a 90mm stem.


Pretty normal for a rider his size.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

On my 80mm stem Pivot M6 this AM - ahhhhh - total bliss. Medium length stems for the win!


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Circlip said:


> Seems normal enough for a modern XC rig.


But Nino would be faster with a 35 mm stem and a bike two sizes larger. I can guarantee it!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Who the f&%$ is Nino, and why do I care about his stem length? 

Looking at his seat angle/height and negative rise stem it seems pretty obvious to me that 95% of riders shouldn't using his set up as a guide...


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

David R said:


> Who the f&%$ is Nino, and why do I care about his stem length?
> 
> Looking at his seat angle/height and negative rise stem it seems pretty obvious to me that 95% of riders shouldn't using his set up as a guide...


You should! I can guarantee you will be a faster rider!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

David R said:


> Who the f&%$ is Nino, and why do I care about his stem length?
> 
> Looking at his seat angle/height and negative rise stem it seems pretty obvious to me that 95% of riders shouldn't using his set up as a guide...


Seat height? You're saying that seat height, which shouldn't be a variable in bike fit (I.e, effectively a constant), makes his bike somehow abnormal?

I'd argue that 99% of riders with the same inseam and shoe size should use the same BB to seat height measurement. Within a very small margin.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Haha, let's all now set up our bikes like Nino, because the Pro XC fit will work like a dream. Thanks for the smiles.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> Haha, let's all now set up our bikes like Nino, because the Pro XC fit will work like a dream. Thanks for the smiles.


I said seat height. One aspect of fit. I realize that some of us are old, fat, and inflexible Americans afraid of anything that isn't easy.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I said seat height. One aspect of fit. I realize that some of us are old, fat, and inflexible Americans afraid of anything that isn't easy.


I don't think there is anything wrong with the seat height, but the nose is tilted down quite a bit, which tells us it's a bike optimized for climbing.

On the other sides Nino prefers his handlebars really low. That's one of the reasons why he runs an inverted stem and 650b instead of 29".
I doubt there are many people with this kind of setup, unless they do xc racing.

Ninos bike definitely isn't an all around trail bike. It's an ultralight XC race machine with a huge bias towards climbing.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

SDMTB'er said:


> You should! I can guarantee you will be a faster rider!


Guess I should have bought skinwall tyres too. Oh well, I'm happy being slow. I bet I'd be at least on-par with Nino in the enjoyment factor, maybe even ahead of...


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Nope. Most places, maybe, but definitely not everywhere. Also, why is faster always better? Does everybody just ride as fast as they can all the time? That doesn't sound fun to me.


Riding faster and riding as fast as you can are two totally different things.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with the seat height, but the nose is tilted down quite a bit, which tells us it's a bike optimized for climbing.
> 
> On the other sides Nino prefers his handlebars really low. That's one of the reasons why he runs an inverted stem and 650b instead of 29".
> I doubt there are many people with this kind of setup, unless they do xc racing.
> ...


The other XC world champion riders I posted also have longer stems. The point was that short stems and forward geometry bikes with long reach are not universally accepted as being superior in all situations.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with the seat height, but the nose is tilted down quite a bit, which tells us it's a bike optimized for climbing.
> 
> On the other sides Nino prefers his handlebars really low. That's one of the reasons why he runs an inverted stem and 650b instead of 29".
> I doubt there are many people with this kind of setup, unless they do xc racing.
> ...


Did you see the video I posted where he is on a trail bike just killing it in Utah?

Here are a few screen grabs. Note the Garmin for reference.





































Long stem there too. Keep trying though.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

I guarantee if he was sponsored by Transition and not Scott he'd be riding with a shorter stem on that trail bike.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> The other XC world champion riders I posted also have longer stems. The point was that short stems and forward geometry bikes with long reach are not universally accepted as being superior in all situations.


I never said they were because honestly I don't know. I have not ridden a XC bike designed with a longer TT and short stem. 
So I can't comment on that. I am not so sure how many of xc racers have ever tried that setup either. It's been only the past few years we could have seen these kind of trail/AM/Enduro bikes to gain momentum. 
But I definitely can comment on these AM bikes, because I have ridden the short geometry with longer 60,80,90mm stems in the past, and I have ridden the long reach/short stem ones as well. 
I have also tried same bikes in two different sizes with different length stems while maintaining the same bar position. HD3 & Nomad3 to be exact. 
I know what I prefer now and it ain't the old short geometry.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

net wurker said:


> DJ, have you ever seen "Taxi Driver"?


Apparently not...


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> Ok. Let's all ride 150mm bikes with DHFs, 800mm bars and FF helmets on XC trails. And tell each other how we need more traction, a 64 degree HTA and maybe that new 160mm fork that just came out. And a 203 rear rotor to match that front, of course. That will solve everything. Totally.
> 
> We'll all go pogo-sticking down the trail at 40% sag, and brag about all the gnar we encountered when we finally use all 90mm of travel left in the fork on the tiny step down right before the parking lot.


Where I live (Van Isle with lots of trips to Sea-to-Sky corridor) those bikes make the most sense. And most of us ride a full spectrum of trails on those kind of bikes out here, without FF helmets, as those bikes and their new geo work the best.

Where you ride it appears a full-on xc bike with older style geometry might be the better choice, or at least your preference.

So let's all ride the bike and geometry and stem/bar that works best for our areas, skill sets , experience and preferences and enjoy it, along with the diversity and constant change for the better we get to experience through this beautiful sport.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

All the animals come out on the trail - XCers, single speeders, free riders, enduro, unicyclists, trail riders, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the trails. I go all over. I ride up, down, roots, and rocks, I ride the city, I don't care. Don't make no difference to me. It does to some. Some won't even take steeps. Don't make no difference to me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Some won't even take steeps with a stem over 50mm.


Fixed.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

David R said:


> I guarantee if he was sponsored by Transition and not Scott he'd be riding with a shorter stem on that trail bike.


Another guarantee. Lots of these nowadays. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

SDMTB'er said:


> Did you see the video I posted where he is on a trail bike just killing it in Utah?
> 
> Here are a few screen grabs. Note the Garmin for reference.
> 
> ...


So Niño can ride like an Enduro rider but on a xc bike. That really just proves he's a badass rider, not that long stems can or should be ridden by most riders.

Yoann Barelli is also a badass rider. And he can slay A-line on a cross bike even though he's a world class Enduro rider. Doesn't mean Cross bikes perform better than Enduro bikes in terrain like the WBP or the PNW, or that we should all ride cross bikes. Just means he's a badass rider.

https://www.tetongravity.com/video/bike/yoann-barelli-shreds-whistlers-a-line-on-cyclocross-bike


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

SCJG said:


> So Niño can ride like an Enduro rider but on a xc bike. That really just proves he's a badass rider, not that long stems can or should be ridden by most riders.
> 
> Yoann Barelli is also a badass rider. And he can slay A-line on a cross bike even though he's a world class Enduro rider. Doesn't mean Cross bikes perform better than Enduro bikes in terrain like the WBP or the PNW, or that we should all ride cross bikes. Just means he's a badass rider.
> 
> http://www.tetongravity.com/video/bike/yoann-barelli-shreds-whistlers-a-line-on-cyclocross-bike


That's not an XC bike Nino is on.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

27 pages in, have we answered this ^^^ boggling question yet?

I've been skimming along day by day, and haven't decided if we have. :nono:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> 27 pages in, have we answered this ^^^ boggling question yet?
> 
> I've been skimming along day by day, and haven't decided if we have. :nono:


I thought it had been answered on page 1... Early mountain bikes were based on the old Schwinn Newsboy bikes, which featured upright geometry and long stays for extra stability (and possibly comfort). When mountain biking took off and people started racing them, longer stems went on the get a better climbing position, which is where cross-country races are won or lost. Long chainstays added comfort and short top tubes/longer stems put weight over the front wheel while keeping the wheelbase in check. Whether this was intentional or just a result of maintaining the tried and true geometry is the question, I guess. Since the trails of the day generally weren't overly technical, there was little reason to add weight and decrease frame stiffness by increasing the reach.

The real question should be why downhill bikes in the late '80s/early '90s had the same geometry and stem length as the the cross-country bikes. Even I don't have an explanation for that... I guess a mountain bike was just a mountain bike back then.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I thought it had been answered on page 1... Early mountain bikes were based on the old Schwinn Newsboy bikes, which featured upright geometry and long stays for extra stability (and possibly comfort). When mountain biking took off and people started racing them, longer stems went on the get a better climbing position, which is where cross-country races are won or lost. Long chainstays added comfort and short top tubes/longer stems put weight over the front wheel while keeping the wheelbase in check. Whether this was intentional or just a result of maintaining the tried and true geometry is the question, I guess. Since the trails of the day generally weren't overly technical, there was little reason to add weight and decrease frame stiffness by increasing the reach.
> 
> The real question should be why downhill bikes in the late '80s/early '90s had the same geometry and stem length as the the cross-country bikes. Even I don't have an explanation for that... I guess a mountain bike was just a mountain bike back then.


What can I say, I skimmed.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Lol. Touche!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I think this thread has a very good chance of hitting 30 pages.

Stems I have used. 135, 120, 100, 90, 70, 65, 55, 50, and 35mm. Stems I will never use on a mountain bike again, anything over 55mm.


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> I think this thread has a very good chance of hitting 30 pages.
> 
> Stems I have used. 135, 120, 100, 90, 70, 65, 55, 50, and 35mm. Stems I will never use on a mountain bike again, anything over 55mm.


Mr. Bickle has summarized it completely. Can we stop now?

... I'm going to go ride my Nomad 3 Enduro bike with its 50mm stem on the cardio xc trails around my house, and after a couple hours and 2500 ft of climbing I will come home and eat dinner. Cause I can. Quite easily. And it's more fun than any other Mtn bike I've owned in 26 yrs. 

See ya all out on the trails.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Don't stop yet, almost there.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Well just for you Travis I pulled the 50mm stem off my Rallon. Put on a nice negative rise 60mm stem I had in a bin. Now I just need to replace the risers with a nice wide flat bar.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

LMN said:


> Well just for you Travis I pulled the 50mm stem off my Rallon. Put on a nice negative rise 60mm stem I had in a bin. Now I just need to replace the risers with a nice wide flat bar.


So you increased the lever from your steerer by two-factors. Just having even a 5deg negative offset increases lever-length with the same measurement of stem length. Why is this setup going to improve on this 50mm stem?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Haint said:


> So you increased the lever from your steerer by two-factors. Just having even a 5deg negative offset increases lever-length with the same measurement of stem length. Why is this setup going to improve on this 50mm stem?


OK we can work this for 30 pages. To be technical a negative offset actually decreases lever-length (60cos(5))=59.8mm. I think the stem is actually -10 on second look.

To answer your question I prefer a slightly longer and lower front end. I find the climbing position more comfortable and it has absolutely no negative effects on descending for me.

The front end of the bike is still higher then I would like. I have a set of 750mm flat bars on another bike that I will probably swap out.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Flucod said:


> The only way we will know what is best stem to use is to consult BushwackinPA, without his superior all around knowledge we can not come to any bonafide conclusions!
> 
> FYI - I swapped my 50mm 35.0 stem to a 90mm 31.8 stem and now I can finally breathe and stretch out.


I agree, it's better to compensate with a longer stem than to ride with a short stem on a bike not designed for it, or a bike too short for a given rider.

If the bike fit doesn't permit a short stem, there really isn't any reason to force it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I checked and the Rallon has a long head tube for some reason. One of the things I love about my Knolly is the low stack. 0 degree stem, and a 10mm rise bar. I have a 760mm flat bar under my bench that I used on my previous bike when I over forked it as I don't like a tall front end either.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

30 pages of stem BS, YES!

I love MTBR.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> I checked and the Rallon has a long head tube for some reason. One of the things I love about my Knolly is the low stack. 0 degree stem, and a 10mm rise bar. I have a 760mm flat bar under my bench that I used on my previous bike when I over forked it as I don't like a tall front end either.


A low front end is something I really like. The high-front end is something I am struggling a bit with on the Rallon, both from a handling and comfort point of view. Pretty sure the flat bars will work it out.

Having fun on the bike though. Did a couple laps of our local DH course tonight. Jumps sure are fun on a big bike.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

Loud noises!!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Haint said:


> So you increased the lever from your steerer by two-factors. Just having even a 5deg negative offset increases lever-length with the same measurement of stem length. Why is this setup going to improve on this 50mm stem?


50 to 60? IMPENDING DOOM!!!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> The only way we will know what is best stem to use is to consult BushwackinPA, without his superior all around knowledge we can not come to any bonafide conclusions!
> 
> FYI - I swapped my 50mm 35.0 stem to a 90mm 31.8 stem and now I can finally breathe and stretch out.


sounds like you need a 40mm longer TT to me. Why did nt you buy a bike with a 40mm longer TT?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> sounds like you need a 40mm longer TT to me. Why did nt you buy a bike with a 40mm longer TT?


Maybe he doesn't want another 1.5" added to his wheel base?


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

^^^^ Don't you know?! The new geo adjusts the wheelbase to fit the stem, making everything so much more fun! Only old school idiots and world class XC and trials riders use long stems to fit on fast agile short wheelbases.


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

Well , looks like 30 pages was a pipe dream Mr. Bickle. 

I have an idea to make this thread more interesting. Will throw out a new sub-topic for discussion- let's debate what's "longer" - the Mtn bike stem you were running in 1992 (in mm) , or the final number of pages you think this thread will reach? 

Here's how it works. I ran a 120 mm in 1992. At this point I'm thinking the final number of pages on this thread will hit about 93..... So my 1992 stem wins the debate.

Over to everyone else to weigh in now


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

All this BS about stems. 
The real reason they shortened stems over the years, is because of political correctness. 
The people with short stems were feeling inadequate, so now everyone is supposed to use a short stem, so nobody feels embarrassed. 
Also women and former felons were feeling threatened by the huge stems, or at least uncomfortable.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

SCJG said:


> Over to everyone else to weigh in now


Throughout the 90s I ran everything from a 150mm stem with flat bars (and then risers) to a bmx stem with Answer DH bars on my bikes, and I know which I prefer.

As for what constitutes "long" in this day and age; IMO anything over 90mm is "long", anything under 50mm is " short", and anything more than 120mm is ridiculous!


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> 50 to 60? IMPENDING DOOM!!!


w/o anything other than what'd been written, I got curious. After reading why the switch was made, I now wish I hadn't though. Any 10deg stem angle should be prohibited.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Haint said:


> w/o anything other than what'd been written, I got curious. After reading why the switch was made, I now wish I hadn't though. Any 10deg stem angle should be prohibited.


You mean that you are opposed to a properly fitting bike? Why?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> You mean that you are opposed to a properly fitting bike? Why?


Nowhere in there is anything recommending weird riding bikes. 10deg stems are too complicated. It's one number and a constant.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

I think this thread is less about stems than about a debate between those that "guarantee" something is better, always, and those that say there are different preferences for different kinds of riding. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Haint said:


> Nowhere in there is anything recommending weird riding bikes. 10deg stems are too complicated. It's one number and a constant.


Yeah. REALLY complicated. About as complicated as running no spacers under your stem, or a lower rise bar :/


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Interestingly, I got a really old Trek rigid bike to use as a commuter. 26" wheels, 71 degree head angle, 135mm stem with narrow bars, and fat but basically slick tires. On occasion I hit some trails with it, and you know what? It's not all that bad. I've been riding mtb since 1990 and have gone through all the (r)evolutions. The antiquated beast just isn't as bad as one would think. YMMV


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Bicycle retailer. June 15, 2015

ON MTB GEOMETRY
Could stretched-out toptubes paired with extra-stubby stems be the next big trend in mountain bike design?

By Matt Wiebe
ALICANTE, Spain — A small Spanish company on the Mediterranean coast is infuencing mountain bike geometry in a way mountain bike pioneer Gary Fisher andTrek were unable to — that is, get people to give longer bikes a try.
The toptubes on Mondraker Bicycles’ suspension frames are 2 to 3 inches longer than industry norms, pushing wheelbases well outside what most think is viable geometry.
Te unorthodox geometry may have naysayers, but the company continues to ship its bikes to various product managers at big
North American brands as well as to North American riders.
“Mondraker has been on the radar for most people, as our ‘ahead of its time’ geometry is being followed closely by other brands since launching it in 2013,” said Israel Romero, Mondraker Bicycles’ global communications director.
“Specialized just released longer-toptube bikes at Sea Otter, the Ruze and Fuse 6 Fattie hardtails. And Canyon released the 2015 Strive Enduro bike with two different geometries; the geometry called ‘Race’ compares to our Mondraker Dune Enduro FG bike, and is really, really close to our numbers,” Romero added.
Mondraker’s Forward Geometry suspension bikes, including the Foxy FR, get toptubes 2 to 3 inches longer than traditional designs and 30-millimeter stems.
Mondraker calls its stretched design Forward Geometry, or FG, originally developed for its 2011 World Cup downhill team of Damien Spagnolo and Fabien Barel. But the company found FG advantages extend beyond downhill.
“There was no specifc motivation for the FG design. We looked into what was going on in the motorcycle world and tried to play with longer toptubes and shorter stems tinkering throughout 2011,” Romero said.
“Forward Geometry is not patented, nor is the idea protected as there is nothing really to protect. The original idea is as simple as lengthening the toptube and by the same amount re- ducing the stem length,” he added.
Te company’s Forward Geometry bikes are spec’d with 30-millimeter stems. Toptubes — and front center — are stretched so a rider’s reach to the handlebar is similar to bikes with traditional geometry.
GaryFisherpushedlongtoptubesandwheel- basesinhisrevamped29ergeometrycalledGen- esis 2, or G2 Geometry, launched in 2007. At the time, toptube lengths of small to XL mountain bike sizes were in the 22- to 24-inch range, and G2 was more than an inch longer. Te toptube of a 23-inch G2 frame stretched to 25.9 inches.
Over the past eight years Trek’s geometry shrank back and is about an inch shorter than G2 per size now — in line with geometries across other brands. Toptubes on 2015 Specialized 29ers run from 22 inches in a small to 25.5 on XL. Santa Cruz Tallboy 29ers range from 23 inches on a medium to 25.9 on an XXL, and Transition Smuggler 29ers run from 22.2 inches on a small to 25.5 inches on an XL.
For perspective, Mondraker’s 2015 Crafy 29er in XL has a toptube length of 28 inches, 2 inches longer than a similar-size G2 frame and more than 2 inches longer than its competition. A small frame Crafy has a toptube length of 24.4inches, also2 inches longer than a small G2 frame or its competition. Two inches is a sizable increase in length.
Kirk Pacenti, the designer behind the 27.5- inch wheel size movement, owns a Mondraker Foxy, a 27.5 full-suspension model he claims is the best-handling bike he has owned.
“The diference in Mondraker’s geometry is immediately apparent when you ride. But the biggest diference is now when I ride a regular mountain bike I find them almost unrideable,” said Pacenti, founder of Pacenti Cycle Design.
Pacenti said longer bikes have so many advantages he developed a patent-pending handlebar design called PDent that he hopes en- courages frame designers to create frames with even longer front centers.
PDent bars when paired with a matching stem allow stems as short as 12 millimeters while keeping bars as low as traditional designs. PDent handlebars are dented so they can over- lap a steerer, allowing reach to be reduced.
“Mondraker specs 30-millimeter stems, which is as short as you can go with traditional stems. Te PDent system allows frame design- ers to extend the length of toptubes by 10 to 15 millimeters and yet keep handlebar contact points the same,” Pacenti said.
“The advantages of longer frames and shorter stems are too big to ignore. Mondraker’s success and the attention paid to their designs by others, as well as interest I’ve received for PDent, suggests this is the way bike design is headed,” he added.
Mondraker’s Romero stresses that Forward Geometry is not a tall-person geometry, insisting mountain bikers of all sizes have been riding bikes that are too small because all geometry is essentially the same. “Lengthening the front center has proved to be a great beneft on gaining confidence on technical terrain, steep downhills and any sketchy situations you can encounter when riding,” he said.
“You have to adapt your riding style a bit as an FG bike is ridden like a more racy DH bike, with your weight bias toward the front, so you can get the proper weight on your front tire, which is slightly farther in front. But this is something you get used to the first two days of riding,” Romero added.
Te advantages of a long wheelbase for smoothing rough terrain at speed make sense. And while Romero admits a long wheelbase turns a larger circle than a shorter bike, the short stem and front weight bias make negotiating tight turns easier than one would think and the long front center makes the design almost wheelie-proof on steep climbs.
From a rider’s perspective, pushing the front axle that far forward provides the same security while sitting in the saddle that a rider getting behind the saddle on a shorter bike feels.
“Most experienced women buy men’s bikes because women’s bikes are too short for their liking. We offer a Factor GO, or Girls Only, full- suspension bike in three diferent sizes — small, medium and large — which are the same geometry as the men’s sizes. It is the same frame with different layouts and colors.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Mondraker pushed it and I would love to try one if only we had dealers here in Canada. Definitely not Luddite friendly, but then neither were suspension, discs, 29, and 650b and look how those turned out.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

The thread that can't be killed.....

Rode a bike on an XC worlds course the other day that had so much cool on it.

It had a super short rear end, about 66 degree head angle, 30mm stem, 760 wide bars, 27.5 wheels. It was horrible to keep the front down on steep techy climbs, and going down was not confidence inspiring, it felt terribly short trying to pitch me forward all the time.

Anyway , thoroughly unenjoyable bike to ride. Bike shop guy swore that lots of people like it - I can't imagine what they are riding to think this beast was a well sorted bike.

Probably designed by a Kool aid drinker who peruses these forums......


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

pharmaboy said:


> The thread that can't be killed.....
> 
> Rode a bike on an XC worlds course the other day that had so much cool on it.
> 
> ...


That's just a mix of parts. Swapping a stem can make any bike into human dogshit.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> The thread that can't be killed.....
> 
> Rode a bike on an XC worlds course the other day that had so much cool on it.
> 
> ...


did you actually ride the correct size......also the new bikes NEED a dropper or they will for sure more pitch happy of the front end than an XC bike with it seat up at pedal height.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> did you actually ride the correct size......also the new bikes NEED a dropper or they will for sure more pitch happy of the front end than an XC bike with it seat up at pedal height.


So, designed for stability, but not actually stable?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

pharmaboy said:


> The thread that can't be killed.....
> 
> Rode a bike on an XC worlds course the other day that had so much cool on it.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the bike was just too short for you. 
What bike and size did you ride? How tall are you?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Why have threads been too damn long?

Problems with skimmers? I'm looking at DJ...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Zowie said:


> Why have threads been too damn long?
> 
> Problems with skimmers? I'm looking at DJ...


Hey I heard that. :incazzato:

Page report: We are now on page 31 and we've surprisingly made very little progress past the 2nd page.


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

so pharmaboy, is this your 1st time on a "new" geo bike and how many days did you ride this setup? we need all the numbers to believe you, ie: reach/stack, your height and ss number. i can ride a road bike for several miles and tell ya that it's the most horrid thing out there..... well because it is, but that's another thread. i also will tell ya that the new new fad will be riding a tandem, solo, from the back seat with ape hangers. front end will stay planted on the steepest of climbs fo sho. i think you might be eating too many of the pharmaceutical samples.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Hey I heard that. :incazzato:
> 
> Page report: We are now on page 31 and we've surprisingly made very little progress past the 2nd page.


And you are still posting.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Flucod said:


> The next size up I had a hard time getting over the top tube and I like a flickable bike and I am faster then anyone I know with a short stem!


Did you forget to include your racing resume and/or strava profile with numerous KOMs?

Maybe you're just faster than the slow people you hang out with.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> And you are still posting.


Yes I'm helping it along, I enjoy a good yard sale.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> So, designed for stability, but not actually stable?


well it assuming your weight in on your feet and your hips are low, its much more stable than a XC bike even if both bikes had lowered saddles. Riding from the saddle though with a Steep STA and quite often a lower front end than a XC bike is trouble some. An XC bike is far more confidence inspiring going down with a saddle at full extenstion, which is fine because XC guys have been very resistant to using droppers. For good cause on rolling terrain on a modern all mountain bike can be rather annoying because they handle better than an XC bike BUt only with the seat dropped.

With that said even on the flattest of terrain if you are good with a dropper you can be faster around corners and maybe faster overall. I know you have rode Luther State Forest and I set a ton of KOMs on one summer down there on a Kona Honzo SS with a 130 fork, and a dropper. I was using the dropper to be able to pump even the flat terrain better. Fast but lots of energy to do so.

Riding a modern bike with out a dropper or with out using it is a recipe to hate the bike. I have seen it so many time where people complain about not being able to turn, and the feeling they are going to endo, and just overall dislike. I then Ask them did they use the dropper and the answer is usually I forgot to.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> Riding a modern bike with out a dropper or with out using it is a recipe to hate the bike.


I ride w/o one - I hate bikes?


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> did you actually ride the correct size......also the new bikes NEED a dropper or they will for sure more pitch happy of the front end than an XC bike with it seat up at pedal height.


Supposed to be the right size , and yes it had a dropper - just a dog of a thing


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

jazzanova said:


> Sounds like the bike was just too short for you.
> What bike and size did you ride? How tall are you?


Yes it was, especially with a 30mm stem on it, zero setback seat post and short stays- I'm 6'1

No doubt if "fit" was the first consideration it would have been a better ride


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

pharmaboy said:


> Yes it was, especially with a 30mm stem on it, zero setback seat post and short stays- I'm 6'1
> 
> No doubt if "fit" was the first consideration it would have been a better ride


Yeah. I keep on reading about people sizing up and then slamming their saddles forward on the seatpost without regard for its position relative to the BB.

And then I shake my head.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

fishwrinkle said:


> so pharmaboy, is this your 1st time on a "new" geo bike and how many days did you ride this setup? we need all the numbers to believe you, ie: reach/stack, your height and ss number. i can ride a road bike for several miles and tell ya that it's the most horrid thing out there..... well because it is, but that's another thread. i also will tell ya that the new new fad will be riding a tandem, solo, from the back seat with ape hangers. front end will stay planted on the steepest of climbs fo sho. i think you might be eating too many of the pharmaceutical samples.


So you only want how many days
Reach
Stack
Height
SS ( wtf is that?)

THEN, you'll believe me......... But probably not change your mind of course.....

Buddy, I don't give a rats what you think, feel, or believe - I just found it amusing that a bike that ticks most mtbr cool boxes is a total pile of pooh when put together.

So whatever - don't buy bikes on specs hoping it will predict what it does, buy a bike on trying it out and maybe on reviews by people with similar riding and goals and size - a chick might have an awesome Facebook page, but be **** is person - sometimes the specs don't quite add up


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> So, designed for stability, but not actually stable?


I think the term is flip flop, and part of the super slack head angle, so the thing handles a bit like a Harley Davidson - ie it doesn't


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

pharmaboy said:


> Yes it was, especially with a 30mm stem on it, zero setback seat post and short stays- I'm 6'1
> 
> No doubt if "fit" was the first consideration it would have been a better ride


Doesn't sound like the right size bike / stem combination. 
But it's hard to really comment, since you never mentioned what bike and size did you ride and how tall you are. 
If you just put a short stem on a bike ment to be ridden with a longer one for your body size, of course it will handle poorly.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Yeah. I keep on reading about people sizing up and then slamming their saddles forward on the seatpost without regard for its position relative to the BB.
> 
> And then I shake my head.


In the past 5 years I have slowly progressed from a short reach/TT bike to a longer one. 
I used to run my saddle all the way back on rails on a slacker ST. 
Now, I am on 74.5° effective ST with the seat all the way in the front.uch much better fit and power output. 
I found out that all these years I was compensating for a short cockpit with the seat position and long stem. 
I really wish my ST was around 75-76...

Now I know this isn't for everyone, but it works great for me. And that's what matters.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> In the past 5 years I have slowly progressed from a short reach/TT bike to a longer one.
> I used to run my saddle all the way back on rails on a slacker ST.
> Now, I am on 74.5° effective ST with the seat all the way in the front.uch much better fit and power output.
> I found out that all these years I was compensating for a short cockpit with the seat position and long stem.
> ...


Do you have some unknown brand of power meter on those bikes?

Because I've looked, and you aren't running an SRM, nor a Stages, nor a P2M, nor any other recognizable power measuring device.

So, how do you know? Where are these improved power numbers coming from?

Or, are you just making it up as you go along?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Do you have some unknown brand of power meter on those bikes?
> 
> Because I've looked, and you aren't running an SRM, nor a Stages, nor a P2M, nor any other recognizable power measuring device.
> 
> ...


I should've used word "power output". You are right I don't measure it any way, so I can't know for sure. 
What I do know is that I prefer steep ST over a slack one. 
It is more comfortable, I feel less tired on longer rides, my lower back doesn't suffer as much. 
It's much better on climbs, I don't need to compensate by moving my butt and try to balance on the extreme end of the saddle. 
I like it on flats as well. 
Anywhere else, I am off the saddle.

I am very sensitive to the seat position, one of my saddles has carbon rails, which tend to get loose and even 1cm move backwards on rails is noticeable to me.

Now, this fit is only possible, because the long reach allows it.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fair enough.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

pharmaboy said:


> I think the term is flip flop, and part of the super slack head angle, so the thing handles a bit like a Harley Davidson - ie it doesn't


DH bikes only flop at walking speeds. Try one sometime. Once you actually get moving, you'll discover that they aren't as bad as people make them out to be, other than the tall gearing, 8" of suspension and having to pedal standing up.

This is from just jumping on one, riding around the parking lot for a minute and then loading it onto the shuttle to ride a trail that I do on my M6. It wasn't that bad and and the gnarly sections really show how the geo helps.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> DH bikes only flop at walking speeds. Try one sometime. Once you actually get moving, you'll discover that they aren't as bad as people make them out to be, other than the tall gearing, 8" of suspension and having to pedal standing up.
> 
> This is from just jumping on one, riding around the parking lot for a minute and then loading it onto the shuttle to ride a trail that I do on my M6. It wasn't that bad and and the gnarly sections really show how the geo helps.


No, they are a handful to ride on flat ground unless hauling ass. Those slack angles are absolutely detrimental to handling on anything less than steep downhills or high speeds. It can be done, but they don't track well and require constant focus to keep the bike on line. You know, kind of the opposite of a steep bike with a long stem on gnarly downhills.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

MOJO Nikolai Geometron 
http://m.pinkbike.com/news/nicolai-mojo-geometron-first-ride-2015.html

• 77° seat angle
• 62-63.5° head angle, dependent upon shock and fork length.
• Sizing: Long, Longer, or Longest

"The geometry certainly is extreme but as current trends continue to get lower, longer and slacker Chris says "Why not keep going!" The head angle sits between 62° and 63.5° with rear-wheel travel between 145mm and 155mm. The seat angle is around 77° and the bottom bracket height drops around 17mm below the axles. On my 'Longest' test bike, the wheelbase was 1320mm. Why such vague values? Your GeoMetron will be built with different fork travel, fork offset and shock length, dependent upon your riding style and favorite terrains."
Riding the Geometron

"Climbing: I often find that being a tall rider on L or XL frame sizes with modern, short chainstays that my mass is too far over the rear axle when climbing. This can lead to an overly saggy rear and a wandering front end. The GeoMetron solves this 'lanky riders' issue with the super steep 77° seat angle, combined with the long-ish 445mm chainstay and the elongated front triangle that moves your mass into a more central position between the wheels and reduces the wheelie effect. This was taken even closer to the extreme by the saddle being slammed as far forward as possible on the rails, even the seat clamp had seen and angle grinder at some point to gain couple of extra millimeters forwards. As for the strange looking seat angle - this bike is designed for going up and then down, on steep climbs it's more comfortable than it looks."

"Descending: When turning back down the hill a change of riding style is required. If you're used to hanging off the back off your bike like Fairclough, or getting your weight back for the steep stuff, a massive, high speed accident is more than likely. A more central riding position is required, and when conquered magic things can happen. You can charge down steeps in a neutral riding position with plenty of front end grip and braking traction, without the fear of going out the front door. The massive wheel base makes front to rear weight distribution a cinch on flat corners and long camber - subtle fore to aft movements can gain grip at one end or the other. A short travel downhill machine, and possibly a bike that would out-descend many true downhill bikes."

Pinkbike's Take:
"I remember saying to a friend in 2007, "why doesn't somebody just make a six-inch travel trail bike with downhill geometry, that you could pedal up the hill?" Eight years later and this is what we have! The GeoMetron is the ideal machine for people who want to get to the top in their own time, then challenge the downhillers' on the way back down. The customized suspension is sublime, with initial breakaway unnoticeable. Progression is unreal from the air units, not even bottoming out when overshooting a huge jump, even though I was sitting well in to the travel with 30-percent sag. The cockpit isn't as enormous as it looks, with the longest size having the exact same bottom bracket to handlebar measurement as my XL Specialized Enduro, bearing in mind different stem lengths and stack heights. The support offered by the fork and the super slack head angle means I could load, and charge at the front end whatever situation I was in and keep it under control. The GeoMetron is a bit futuristic, but take the time to get used to the geometry and you'll be having a blast." - Paul Aston


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

"Throw out the rulebook and let the stopwatch determine your perfect frame geometry and suspension setup." - Sub-heading from PB front page.

And yet, nothing resembling "the stopwatch", aka timing data or analysis has been presented by anyone in this camp. Or, God help them, a regression analysis of the data to actually make sense of that non-existent timing data.

It's also quite humorous that the people advocating for this willfully ignore one of the key statements in the closing paragraph, yet want this geometry and design philosophy to apply to everyone.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> I am in between Pivots M and L as well, but I didn't like the feeling of the larger frame. Horses for courses.


I am glad you came to your senses after all and bought a L to replace the M... 
Doesn't the shorter stem on a better fitting bike feel superior?

It would be fitting to say "We told you so"

Enjoy the ride man!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

How can you talk about the length of a bicycle stem for over thirty pages? Stunning..


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Also like the line, " get to the top in your own time", hell no, I want to get to the top fast!


A lot of riders care more about all around or DH performance before climbing. I don't know anyone who picks their bikes based on how fast they go up. We climb plenty, but it not our focus. How many uphill races are there nowadays, how many enduro races? How do you find out what the limits of geometry are without guys like this who actually build and try it? Too much, probably for most, interesting, without a doubt.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> A lot of riders care more about all around or DH performance before climbing. I don't know anyone who picks their bikes based on how fast they go up. We climb plenty, but it not our focus.


Well there again we get into different priorities. Usually, getting to sample more trails on a given outing means more fun for me. How do I get to squeeze in more trails to a finite ride time? Answer = go faster relative to the energy/output I feel like expending on a given day. Not go faster uphill or downhill in isolation, but faster overall. I have developed a pretty good idea for myself over time of what the best bike setup is to accomplish that.

Most of the folks I ride with have similar preferences, want to see a lot of trails, cover a lot of ground in the time available. We have a great time. If your riding buds have a different idea of what makes a good ride for them, that's great too.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, they are a handful to ride on flat ground unless hauling ass. Those slack angles are absolutely detrimental to handling on anything less than steep downhills or high speeds. It can be done, but they don't track well and require constant focus to keep the bike on line. You know, kind of the opposite of a steep bike with a long stem on gnarly downhills.


That was your experience after riding one on a normal trail? It certainly wasn't mine, and there were enough pedaling sections to not feel much of a difference beyond power sucking suspension and what is effectively road bike gearing as long as you weren't trying ultra-low speed maneuvers.



Travis Bickle said:


> A lot of riders care more about all around or DH performance before climbing. I don't know anyone who picks their bikes based on how fast they go up. We climb plenty, but it not our focus. How many uphill races are there nowadays, how many enduro races? How do you find out what the limits of geometry are without guys like this who actually build and try it? Too much, probably for most, interesting, without a doubt.


Pretty much, I'm not going to get crazy and put a real cassette and mortal sized chainring on DH bike that weighs somewhere in the 30-35lb range and try to pedal it up a hill, but the real difference between climbing and gravity orientated bikes comes out in technical and downhill sections. They'll all get to the top eventually, but there's a much bigger difference once the climbing is done.

If all I wanted to do was climb and suffer, I'd ride my road bike more.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Flucod said:


> Where I live there are "zero" enduro races but 100 XC races where going uphill the fastest wins. I don't race anymore, but I dont want to take all day to get up a 3000ft climb to go down 1/2mph faster.
> 
> If you want to focus on the DH, thats fine and would agree about the setup, but in my area you will climb 10,000ft on any given ride.


The Geometron obviously isn't a XC bike. It seems you shouldn't be looking at AM bikes if your main focus is climbing...

Also from the review:

"...this bike is designed for going up and then down, on steep climbs it's more comfortable than it looks."

looks like it can climb just fine.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Flucod said:


> The discussion is about everybody should have short stems, it just is not true or short stems make a bike ride better then everything else or you are stupid for using a long stem. I believe everything has a place and agree the short stem long top tube bikes for descending are superior but they do not fit the majority of people riding and for climbing are inferior.


Accually, I agree with you. 
If the bike wasn't designed to be run with a short stem for a given riders dimensions it is pointless to run it with one and it will make the bike behave like shite.

On the other side, if the bike has the TT/reach long enough to run a shortish <50mm stem and the rest of the geometry supporting it (steep & short enough ST to run a adequate dropper) it will climb marvelously and be superior on downs.

I hear this all the time here:
"I put a short stem on my bike and it climbs like shot"
Well, if you do it on a short bike for you, it is not going to work...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> That was your experience after riding one on a normal trail? It certainly wasn't mine, and there were enough pedaling sections to not feel much of a difference beyond power sucking suspension and what is effectively road bike gearing as long as you weren't trying ultra-low speed maneuvers.


i've ridden more than a couple of long-travel, slack bikes on typical cross-country trails, and they all gave up quite a bit in the handling department to the trail and cross-country bikes I have ridden. The slack geometry required more damping/preload in the rear to keep the shock from sagging too much, which created an imbalance when descending. Platform definitely helps, but I hate flipping levers all the time. Other suspension designs work better than others, but the slack angles still slowed the bike down through tight, twisty sections on flats or climbs.



jazzanova said:


> The Geometron obviously isn't a XC bike. It seems you shouldn't be looking at AM bikes if your main focus is climbing...
> 
> Also from the review:
> 
> ...


Looks like it climbs better than most people would expect, given its gravity-skewed geometry, but it doesn't say it climbs well, either.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

No, this thread is about why stems were too long for too long. Why was it in the 80's and 90's bikes were short and stems were long, when all it takes is a slight increase in top tube to make room for a shorter, safer stem, that would have saved me a lot of grief when I started out. Back then long stems were cool, when in fact they only looked cool, but as a newb how was I to know?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jazzanova said:


> The GeoMetron is the ideal machine for people who want to get to the top in their own time, then challenge the downhillers' on the way back down.





Travis Bickle said:


> I don't know anyone who picks their bikes based on how fast they go up. We climb plenty, but it not our focus.





richde said:


> They'll all get to the top eventually, but there's a much bigger difference once the climbing is done.
> If all I wanted to do was climb and suffer, I'd ride my road bike more.


There you go^ short stems, long & slack, helmets on the back. And what's wrong with that? Not one damn thing if that's what turns your crank, but why do y'all feel the need to make your right *everybody's* right???

Weird.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> No, this thread is about why stems were too long for too long. Why was it in the 80's and 90's bikes were short and stems were long, when all it takes is a slight increase in top tube to make room for a shorter, safer stem, that would have saved me a lot of grief when I started out. Back then long stems were cool, when in fact they only looked cool, but as a newb how was I to know?


It's much easier to call a 100mm stem "long" and argue for that...because it's such a drastic difference between 50 and 100mm. 

I mean, they are long-er but they're not really "long."


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> There you go^ short stems, long & slack, helmets on the back. And what's wrong with that? Not one damn thing if that's what turns your crank, but why do y'all feel the need to make your right *everybody's* right???
> 
> Weird.


Short stemmers are the Mtb equivalent of Vegans.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

pharmaboy said:


> Short stemmers are the Mtb equivalent of Vegans.


Haha, I am a short stemmer and have been paleo for 4years.
But agree, I am also all about veggies. With a lot of fat and some meat in the mix.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

pharmaboy said:


> Short stemmers are the Mtb equivalent of Vegans.


Has anyone noticed carrots are getting awfully short these days?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I consider 100mm road bike long. Vegans, yes I love em barbecued.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> How can you talk about the length of a bicycle stem for over thirty pages? Stunning..


To paraphrase Rei Toei, although it appears they are talking to each other, they are actually talking to themselves.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> why do y'all feel the need to make your right *everybody's* right???
> 
> Weird.


Where do you get that from?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Where do you get that from?


There's at least one poster here who has said that a 35mm stem should be standard issue on MTBs.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)




----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> Where do you get that from?


Hmm, can't exactly recall. From just about every page of this thread?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> There's at least one poster here who has said that a 35mm stem should be standard issue on MTBs.





J.B. Weld said:


> Hmm, can't exactly recall. From just about every page of this thread?


Should be easy to find and quote then.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Just noticed that the example that everybody likes to point out only uses a 90mm stem. Yeah, that's just crazy that a trailbike uses a stem less than two inches shorter than a purpose built XC race bike. Total overkill, I don't know how people do it without flipping over on their back when climbing up over a curb, if they can even climb something that steep.


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

Well my lava dome came with a 70 mm. I swapped for my wife's 60mm and I feel I want/need a 35/40mm. Just feel like I am too far forward. ESpecially when I'm hunched over the rear tire. 


Sent from my iPhone while my Heli plays with the gophers


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

richde said:


> That's in reference to your failed attempt to say that people weren't skilled enough to ride with a longer stem. Turns out they just want a more upright riding position for more comfort and to make it easier to move their weight backwards.
> 
> Still waiting for that quote about everybody needing 35mm stems, btw. Only a moron would make a claim they can't back up.


This is why I want a 35. More upright riding position, get a little more weight on the rear and ability to get right over the rear for DH sections. My 29er Lava Dome with 19" frame is just a little long in reach. Ya you could say the frame fitment is wrong, but a 17" felt to small and cramped overall. Ya I could have went a different make too, but this is what I got for the price/money I had at the time. I'm 5'10" too.
70mm was way to long once I got her off the walking trails/fire roads.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

It's a long thread and no mistake. Mostly consisting of the same shite over and over again! :0)


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Here's an article on how to pressure up your shock with a CO2 cartridge:

Tech Tuesday: Inflate Your Air-Shock Without a Pump - Pinkbike


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> After 28 years mountain biking and having stems from 135mm to my current 35mm I'm wondering why stems were so stupid when I was a newb? Could have saved a lot of skin back then. Every time I have gone shorter it has been a noticeable improvement with no drawbacks, including climbiness. Why too long for so long?





BushwackerinPA said:


> then you bought a bike a size or 2 to small.





AndrwSwitch said:


> So, Better At Everything. No wonder everybody's going to wider bars. Stem length is kind of a side effect of that change, IMO.
> 
> I think a lot of new designs are going for lighter front ends. And, people want to lighten the front ends on existing bikes. Now that the cat's out of the bag, it's no surprise that everyone is getting shorter stems. I think the aspirational image moving on from XC is part of that.





David R said:


> I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want their handlebars more than about 50-60mm in front of their head tube...


That's just the first page... Do I really need to do the next 32?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

smilinsteve said:


> Here's an article on how to pressure up your shock with a CO2 cartridge:
> 
> Tech Tuesday: Inflate Your Air-Shock Without a Pump - Pinkbike


Who's this clown and why is he posting about inflating shocks????

:lol:

(wrong thread).


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Who's this clown and why is he posting about inflating shocks????
> 
> :lol:
> 
> (wrong thread).


At least it was something different! Would you say that everybody should use a CO2 cartridge to pump up their shocks, or is there still a place for the outdated shock pump?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> At least it was something different! Would you say that everybody should use a CO2 cartridge to pump up their shocks, or is there still a place for the outdated shock pump?


There's a thread where Mr. Alias530 is complaining about shock pumps being too slow to pressure up his shock, which might even be more trivial than discussing the differences in stems which are all within an inch of each other.  I must be attracted to trivia.

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-disc...oesnt-take-100-pumps-reach-250psi-990312.html


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

RS VR6 said:


> When it comes to front ends...I think its more about stability more than anything else. The more stable the bike is...the more fun descending will be. Who the heck wants a sketchy squirrely front end when going down a steep or loose terrain.





BushwackerinPA said:


> If I walked walk into a Giant Dealership and said I wanted a trance there is no way I d end up a on large, heck I could not fit one with the stock 100 mm stem anyways. but with me zero offset seat post, 35mm bars and swept back bars, I have the right lenght cockpit with the wheel in front of me. Easy as hell to climb as well because I am way forward on the rail.
> 
> So again with Anthem which has a slightl smaller reach number vs the trance if I walked into a Giant Dealer and had them set me up on bike I would still end up M. I would end up hating it as it would feel like an endo machine, and the steering would be twitchy. So until someone else has some actual hard data that short TT,long stem is faster. than a loner TT short stem, I am going to stay on my high horse and keep telling people that they are wrong. There is no disadvantage to the set up once you get use to it.





BushwackerinPA said:


> Increase wheelbase can and usually is a good thing.
> 
> Again why do you need weight on the front end?
> 
> The bike is not really to big if you plan to run it with a short cockpit. Its not I agree or disagree its that I know at least on the Trance I am faster on the exact same set up on the 35mm stem large vs the M with a 90mm Stem. Not just down but up. I would see no reason why that trend would not continue on any other bike.


Page 2.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> There's a thread where Mr. Alias530 is complaining about shock pumps being too slow to pressure up his shock, which might even be more trivial than discussing the differences in stems which are all within an inch of each other.  I must be attracted to trivia.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-disc...oesnt-take-100-pumps-reach-250psi-990312.html


I saw that one, but skipped over it... I figured that's where this was meant to go.. My arms get a bit worked after pumping up a shock, but it's worse with a frame pump. I wonder if I can use a CO2 cartridge to pump up my tires on the trail... lol


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Salsa Cycles has been behind the whole thing.










thread Closed.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> Geez guys, get a grip, it's the Internet .
> 
> For all the posts on posters saying short stems are awesome, head to the earlier pages with Travis arguing that long stems have no advantages, and when every XC bike rider was put up to demonstrate that they obviously do have advantages because the fastest riders in the world run std length stems, it was argued for 5 pages that these guys run long stems because they are super skilled.???
> 
> ...


again no one has done testing with Nino on an XC course with 35mm vs his 90mm stem. Make sure the cockpit lenght is the same.

With out legit testing its all heresy.

and another point is that faster on XC course is fairly meaningless to many MTBer today. Most of us just want to climb to get to good downhills or fun sections of trail assuming we have terrain that lets us find terrain like that.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

pharmaboy said:


> Geez guys, get a grip, it's the Internet .
> 
> For all the posts on posters saying short stems are awesome, head to the earlier pages with Travis arguing that long stems have no advantages, and when every XC bike rider was put up to demonstrate that they obviously do have advantages because the fastest riders in the world run std length stems, it was argued for 5 pages that these guys run long stems because they are super skilled.???
> 
> ...


Bravo, Bravo!


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Haint said:


> Salsa Cycles has been behind the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like an outdated version. Only goes down to 55... 
Or maybe it's the XC version.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> again no one has done testing with Nino on an XC course with 35mm vs his 90mm stem. Make sure the cockpit lenght is the same.
> 
> With out legit testing its all heresy.
> 
> and another point is that faster on XC course is fairly meaningless to many MTBer today. Most of us just want to climb to get to good downhills or fun sections of trail assuming we have terrain that lets us find terrain like that.


Why? The vast majority of people ride XC terrain.

Just because they ride up the hills a lot slower and down them slightly faster, doesn't mean the terrain isn't firmly within the XC realm. Unless you're hitting 4' drops or your trails consist of nothing but massive square edged rocks, it's XC.

I was amazed by how many guys on the Front Range of CO were riding 140mm bikes on butter smooth XC trails. The Niner Rip9 with a Pike 140 was twice as popular as the next most popular bike on the trails I rode.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> again no one has done testing with Nino on an XC course with 35mm vs his 90mm stem. Make sure the cockpit lenght is the same.


I think the assumption is that Nino has pretty much done enough testing on his own bike set up that we don't need to do any testing for him.



> and another point is that faster on XC course is fairly meaningless to many MTBer today. Most of us just want to climb to get to good downhills or fun sections of trail assuming we have terrain that lets us find terrain like that


There's been a few comments about XC riding not being relevant etc. I guess you guys live in a different universe. I know here in the Rockies, no matter how much you like to shred the gnar, you are going to be pedaling up hill about 3/4 of your ride time, unless you are doing shuttles or lift service. 
And how much time are you rad enduro types spending in the air? About .01% of your total ride time? XC riding includes tech, includes downhill, etc. I think XC riding applies to most every rider, even if in your mind your downhills are too rad to be called XC 

Edit: Didn't see Le Duke's similar point above


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Why? The vast majority of people ride XC terrain.
> 
> Just because they ride up the hills a lot slower and down them slightly faster, doesn't mean the terrain isn't firmly within the XC realm. Unless you're hitting 4' drops or your trails consist of nothing but massive square edged rocks, it's XC.
> 
> I was amazed by how many guys on the Front Range of CO were riding 140mm bikes on butter smooth XC trails. The Niner Rip9 with a Pike 140 was twice as popular as the next most popular bike on the trails I rode.


you cna make the argument everything is XC......

Heck even at the flat luther state forest I found lines on my Honzo I oculd never touch on my XC bikes. There was one spot where there was a 2 foot stump right after a nice roller and I could jump and plant my rear tires up, could never do it on my hunched over XC bike.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> you cna make the argument everything is XC......
> 
> Heck even at the flat luther state forest I found lines on my Honzo I oculd never touch on my XC bikes. There was one spot where there was a 2 foot stump right after a nice roller and I could jump and plant my rear tires up, could never do it on my hunched over XC bike.


Keep practicing.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> I think the assumption is that Nino has pretty much done enough testing on his own bike set up that we don't need to do any testing for him.
> 
> There's been a few comments about XC riding not being relevant etc. I guess you guys live in a different universe. I know here in the Rockies, no matter how much you like to shred the gnar, you are going to be pedaling up hill about 3/4 of your ride time, unless you are doing shuttles or lift service.
> And how much time are you rad enduro types spending in the air? About .01% of your total ride time? XC riding includes tech, includes downhill, etc. I think XC riding applies to most every rider, even if in your mind your downhills are too rad to be called XC
> ...


I agree thatyou are climbing far more than going dh, but for me there are certain DHs that I would not even bother climbing to if were not for the burlier bikes.

Its the same thing with skiing. The majority of powder days I lug long reverse camber skis up the hill because in powder they are the most fun to ski down. the fastest set up down the hill is tough, dangerous and not fun to ski down the hill.

I could ski down the same hill on narrow fully cambered skis but to be honestly my motivation just would not be there to do that. Even on the flattest least gnarly terrain the Reverse reverse skis are better in powder.






here is some skiing stoke.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> Keep practicing.


why? There is no point to it and it actually more dangerous on the old XC bike.

So I am going to try something next year though...and that is run a size L XC bike with a 35-50mm stem and see if I like XC racing better with that setup and more importantly eventually go faster.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> why? There is no point to it and it actually more dangerous on the old XC bike.
> 
> So I am going to try something next year though...and that is run a size L XC bike with a 35-50mm stem and see if I like XC racing better with that setup and more importantly eventually go faster.


How are you going to determine what is the cause of any and all increases in speed in your (n=1) study?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Why? The vast majority of people ride XC terrain.
> 
> Just because they ride up the hills a lot slower and down them slightly faster, doesn't mean the terrain isn't firmly within the XC realm. Unless you're hitting 4' drops or your trails consist of nothing but massive square edged rocks, it's XC.
> 
> I was amazed by how many guys on the Front Range of CO were riding 140mm bikes on butter smooth XC trails. The Niner Rip9 with a Pike 140 was twice as popular as the next most popular bike on the trails I rode.


I think there's more to big mountain riding than the outskirts of Ft Collins.

Rip9's are 125mm bikes, btw.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> I think there's more to big mountain riding than the outskirts of Ft Collins.
> 
> Rip9's are 125mm bikes, btw.


And you'll notice how I differentiated between the two.

I said, "I was amazed by how many guys on the Front Range of CO were riding 140mm bikes on butter smooth XC trails."

And then, "The Niner Rip9 with a Pike 140 was twice as popular as the next most popular bike on the trails I rode."

The latter is additional information that does not diminish my amazement in response to the former.

And, I rode quite a bit all around CO, WY, and UT this summer. Not just the "outskirts of Ft Collins." Doesn't change my opinion on the matter. Lots of people with too much bike.

But, there are threads in the Florida forum where guys are talking about the relative merits of a Trek Remedy 29, so I shouldn't be too surprised, I suppose.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> And you'll notice how I differentiated between the two.
> 
> I said, "I was amazed by how many guys on the Front Range of CO were riding 140mm bikes on butter smooth XC trails."
> 
> ...


Maybe for where you saw them, but they might just ride other places as well.

Ever consider that?

Looks like you didn't have enough bike for the descents, either. 
(That's the problem with trying to swing your dick with Strava, people can see your 389/685 descents)


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Have you ever considered the fact that, maybe, just maybe, I stop on descents to talk to people, yield the trail, help people that flat, etc? Just like I do on the uphills. Crazy, I know. 

Or, that I'm on a casual group ride?

Or, riding with my wife?

Or, running with my dog?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> A lot of riders care more about all around or DH performance before climbing. I don't know anyone who picks their bikes based on how fast they go up. We climb plenty, but it not our focus. How many uphill races are there nowadays, how many enduro races? How do you find out what the limits of geometry are without guys like this who actually build and try it? Too much, probably for most, interesting, without a doubt.


Travis where do you ride mostly? If you think about it if you climb what you go down you will be climbing most of the time unless you can climb as fast or faster than you go down. Therefore it makes logical sense to have a bike that does both well.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> I think the assumption is that Nino has pretty much done enough testing on his own bike set up that we don't need to do any testing for him.
> 
> There's been a few comments about XC riding not being relevant etc. I guess you guys live in a different universe. I know here in the Rockies, no matter how much you like to shred the gnar, you are going to be pedaling up hill about 3/4 of your ride time, unless you are doing shuttles or lift service.
> And how much time are you rad enduro types spending in the air? About .01% of your total ride time? XC riding includes tech, includes downhill, etc. I think XC riding applies to most every rider, even if in your mind your downhills are too rad to be called XC
> ...


100 percent spot on.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Have you ever considered the fact that, maybe, just maybe, I stop on descents to talk to people, yield the trail, help people that flat, etc? Just like I do on the uphills. Crazy, I know.
> 
> Or, that I'm on a casual group ride?
> 
> ...


See how assumptions work?

Maybe if we all wanted to tip-toe down the descents, we WOULD all ride XC bikes...but that's just not the case.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> See how assumptions work?
> 
> Maybe if we all wanted to tip-toe down the descents, we WOULD all ride XC bikes...but that's just not the case.


Maybe most trails just don't require a mini downhill bike to ride? I know it's inconceivable to some of you that a downhill can be ridden on a bike with a 100 mm stem, but some riders are able to do it.


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

Folks - just want to point out here, reach is very different than top tube length or effective top tube length.

Reach really is a key consideration for standing descending , not as much for climbing.

Seat tube angles really impact effective top tube length, and therefore both taken together are much more important considerations for seated climbing.

Also, stem length and bar width are linked, shouldn't usually consider one without the other. Shorter stem should usually be paired with wider bar and vica versa in most cases- put your fists together and then move them out- you'll see that as you do this your hands come in closer to your body (in a basic arch movement )

I agree that no "one" stem length will work for all riders in all kinds of riding given the variables of bike design, era it was designed, and your riding area and preference , but generally, longer reach means better descending when standing.

As I'm pretty much always standing when I descend (and so should you!), I have found a longer reach, (in other word modern geometry ) works way better for me. Paired with a steep seat tube and slack head angle (again, modern geometry), in my riding area climbing isn't really diminished on these modern bikes as my trails are not buff. And really, the 40 seconds I might lose on the climb means nothing.....

and before you all label me as an Enduro rider , let me just I say that I'm a recovered xc junkie who used to log 5000 km of single track a year in the eastern Rockies, all through the nineties, on a titanium hardtail with a 120 mm stem, then moved to the west coast and had to completely relearn how to ride. And had to toss the xc bike.

In other words, been there, done all the genres, all the schools, earned the "full-spectrum rider" badge.....

Here's a good article everyone on this thread should read.....

http://www.transitionbikes.com/PDF/GETDIALED_FrameGeo_Part1_ETTvsReach.pdf


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

richde said:


> I think there's more to big mountain riding than the outskirts of Ft Collins.
> 
> Rip9's are 125mm bikes, btw.


You can run a 140 mm fork on a rip9.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> Travis where do you ride mostly? If you think about it if you climb what you go down you will be climbing most of the time unless you can climb as fast or faster than you go down. Therefore it makes logical sense to have a bike that does both well.


My bike climbs well but it weighs 29lbs and is burly enough to handle all the trails here. I live in Cumberland BC on Vancouver Island and we have a little of everything but maybe more demanding than a lot of places. I have a Warden, but could have gone with a new Endorphin or Transition Scout and still be ok. I'm old and like the extra forgiveness and stability that comes with the Warden. My friends ride Troys, Wardens, 153, Range, Sight, an old reign, M6, and the strongest has an old SC Driver 8. The SC rider out climbs everyone and his seatpost doesn't even have enough extension to my eye. No one is going to give up any DH performance and all of us can make it up steep techy sections as it is. For me riding is about fun and adrenaline mainly, and climbing is low on both. I did ride a climbing trail a couple hours from here that was fun the way it flowed, but it was still a means to an end. If I was to move back to the prairies I would get a HT or short travel but enough reach to use a 50mm stem and a wide bar.


----------



## SCJG (Sep 14, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> My bike climbs well but it weighs 29lbs and is burly enough to handle all the trails here. I live in Cumberland BC on Vancouver Island and we have a little of everything but maybe more demanding than a lot of places. I have a Warden, but could have gone with a new Endorphin or Transition Scout and still be ok. I'm old and like the extra forgiveness and stability that comes with the Warden. My friends ride Troys, Wardens, 153, Range, Sight, an old reign, M6, and the strongest has an old SC Driver 8. The SC rider out climbs everyone and his seatpost doesn't even have enough extension to my eye. No one is going to give up any DH performance and all of us can make it up steep techy sections as it is. For me riding is about fun and adrenaline mainly, and climbing is low on both. I did ride a climbing trail a couple hours from here that was fun the way it flowed, but it was still a means to an end. If I was to move back to the prairies I would get a HT or short travel but enough reach to use a 50mm stem and a wide bar.


Yep to all that Mr. Bickle.... BTW, I'm just down-island from you, love riding those Cumberland trails....


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/ridiculous-bikes-roost-carbon-2015.html


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> ... For me riding is about fun and adrenaline mainly, and climbing is low on both ...


Maybe that's getting near the heart of the matter ... while fun is entirely subjective, enjoying adrenaline vs enjoying endorphins leads people into different sports, different areas of a sport or different set ups within a sport.

I will climb all day, I never use my seat and I love working form and keeping the engine flowing. I used to ride my rigid to one of the steepest, longest, rockiest descents in the area. I would ride up it, then descend the roads down from the top entrance. Why? Because I didn't want to put my squish in the car and drive there. Also riding the squish there took away some of the 'fun' of hammering. My body and mind work differently than anyone else's, and that's true for everyone whose ever lived.

Making decisions in life is about weighing utility FOR YOURSELF. Stem length gives you more options, thereby enhancing the affect of your build decisions. IMO stems are never to long or too short, because they represent the freedom of choice and the span of this great sport.

Again its all subjective, but it comes back to the number one rule of cycling and life in general: It's about the ride. If you are out giving the ride your undivided focus, I respect you 100%, no matter what bike, skateboard or pair of shoes you are riding.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Maybe most trails just don't require a mini downhill bike to ride? I know it's inconceivable to some of you that a downhill can be ridden on a bike with a 100 mm stem, but some riders are able to do it.


Making more strawman arguments? I didn't realize that going from a 100mm stem to a 70 or 80mm made a bike a "mini downhill bike."

Didn't I just say I was riding Bootleg Canyon (and passing nubs) on a Cannondale F-Si? It's certainly doable, it just isn't optimum for all-around balanced performance. It is a climbing bike, and it climbed awesome, even up a technical trail like West Leg, but it wasn't as capable on the downhill as it could have been while still maintaining most, if not effectively all, of it's climbing potential for riders who aren't worried about those last couple of % of climbing performance but would like a little more confidence and comfort on descents.

I was just blasting the trails this morning with a Trek Stache 29+ (which is a far more capable bike than it would seem), and since the area I was riding didn't have any sustained steep DH sections, the 70ish mm stem on it worked as an awesome compromise between long and short for a great balance between pedaling/climbing and bike handling. A 100mm stem would have been too long and made the bike a little more cumbersome to use it as a trail HT.

All it takes is a quick back to back comparison between bikes to see where the difference lies. Plus, I'll trust the professional bike designers over random people on the internet who refuse to accept change in their lives because it might mean they were misinformed/misled in the past.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What would you change about the F-Si, given free reign?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> What would you change about the F-Si, given free reign?


2.3 tires vs the 2.1 and maybe -20mm on the stem.

Climbed like a beast, just the tires seemed a little skinny for loose stuff (although there wasn't any at Bootleg), and OMG were they hard. The stem made it feel just a touch too demanding, as far as commitment goes. Still jumped it and took it around the pump track at a good pace, but it didn't feel quite right. I had fun on it, it just wasn't as fun as it could have been while still maintaining most of it's strengths.

I was actually considering getting a 29'er HT and making it a little more trail friendly for places my 6" bike is overkill, but decided on a Stache instead.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What tires did it come with? 

I'd love to ride an F-Si with 2.4 Racing Ralphs or 2.35 Ikons. Or, if Schwalbe ever made them, a 2.35 Rocket Ron.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Maybe most trails just don't require a mini downhill bike to ride? I know it's inconceivable to some of you that a downhill can be ridden on a bike with a 100 mm stem, but some riders are able to do it.


I've ridden world cup downhill courses on a 4" travel hardtail with a 90mm stem and 630mm bars, I've honestly lost track of how many runs I did in my youth at Bromont & MSA on that bike. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that everyone should do it, hell, now that I'm older I'm not dumb or crazy enough to try it again.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

richde said:


> The stem made it feel just a touch too demanding, as far as commitment goes.


_"Sometimes a stem is just a stem."
_
Sigmund Freud


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> What tires did it come with?
> 
> I'd love to ride an F-Si with 2.4 Racing Ralphs or 2.35 Ikons. Or, if Schwalbe ever made them, a 2.35 Rocket Ron.


I think they were Schwalbes, they weren't lacking in grip, just in volume.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Might have been Thunder Burts. For a VERY low-pro tire, they are very grippy, but also a very low volume tire.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Next big thing: Quick-release adjustable stems.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

It is quite shocking on how capable the modern XC bikes are. When own one and spend some time dialing it in, they are quick.

I am absolutely loving my Rallon, so much fun on the descents. But the time gap between it and XC bike on the decent is quite small. The Rallon is a lot more fun though; the speed it allows to hit on some sections is sort of terrifying.



richde said:


> 2.3 tires vs the 2.1 and maybe -20mm on the stem.
> 
> Climbed like a beast, just the tires seemed a little skinny for loose stuff (although there wasn't any at Bootleg), and OMG were they hard. The stem made it feel just a touch too demanding, as far as commitment goes. Still jumped it and took it around the pump track at a good pace, but it didn't feel quite right. I had fun on it, it just wasn't as fun as it could have been while still maintaining most of it's strengths.
> 
> I was actually considering getting a 29'er HT and making it a little more trail friendly for places my 6" bike is overkill, but decided on a Stache instead.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

LMN said:


> I am absolutely loving my Rallon, so much fun on the descents. But the time gap between it and XC bike on the decent is quite small. The Rallon is a lot more fun though; the speed it allows to hit on some sections is sort of terrifying.


The fun part is when your brain adjusts to the speed of the new bike; what is now terrifying becomes normal, and what you once thought impossible become thrilling. I went through that process in the spring when I got my Norco Range (I'd been riding XC hardtails up until then) and that feeling is incredibly addictive. I'm rather surprised I haven't maimed myself yet with all the stupid & reckless stuff I've done & gotten away with since getting the bike. If I tried even 10% of those stunts on my XC bikes I'd be typing this from a wheelchair.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

aerius said:


> I've ridden world cup downhill courses on a 4" travel hardtail with a 90mm stem and 630mm bars, I've honestly lost track of how many runs I did in my youth at Bromont & MSA on that bike. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that everyone should do it, hell, now that I'm older I'm not dumb or crazy enough to try it again.


How many riders are riding a World Cup downhill course very often on a trail bike? I'm guessing not many. I didn't say anybody should. I said most trails don't require from downhill bike geometry. Why do people feel the need to twist things? I will say again that just because you did or didn't do something doesn't mean nobody else can or should. I do like how people feel the need to try and impress people by stating what they've ridden or how fast they ride on this or that, like going fast is always the point and proves they know what they are talking about. If you feel that much more secure on a huge top tube and tiny stem, that's a good thing for you. Some people don't need or want that security blanket.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Oh, and one more thought. If you're riding more challenging terrain faster with the new geometry, is that really safer than riding the old-style geometry slower? I would argue that the new geometry is inviting less skilled riders to ride over their heads, which might mean fewer crashes, but bigger crashes.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Oh, and one more thought. If you're riding more challenging terrain faster with the new geometry, is that really safer than riding the old-style geometry slower?


Sure. Until something breaks.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Oh, and one more thought. If you're riding more challenging terrain faster with the new geometry, is that really safer than riding the old-style geometry slower? I would argue that the new geometry is inviting less skilled riders to ride over their heads, which might mean fewer crashes, but bigger crashes.


I can only speak for myself but I believe I actually way safer on my Rallon then my XC bike. The speed differential between the two is actually fairly small. Even when I am absolutely flying on the Rallon, at best I am going 10% quicker. I still riding the XC bike really quick.

The difference is on the XC bike I have to get everything right. When I hit that jump, I have to hit the landing perfect, a case or an overshoot is game over. Going through that high speed sketchy corner I am at my absolute limit. The Rallon is so competent that I am rarely approaching the limit of my skills.

Which I have confess is a bit of a negative for me. I love being pushed to improve and on the Rallon a lot of trails don't push me. It does open up some new trails, trails that I use to pick my way down on an XC bike I can attack on the Rallon.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Oh, and one more thought. If you're riding more challenging terrain faster with the new geometry, is that really safer than riding the old-style geometry slower? I would argue that the new geometry is inviting less skilled riders to ride over their heads, which might mean fewer crashes, but bigger crashes.


Hahaha, you can't be serious.
So your argument is to give a rider less safer equipment for a given speed so it pushed him to ride slower?

This is just not a good idea. Neither for an advanced rider, neither for a beginner.

But hey, you have just proved the point that the new geometry bikes are safer and therefore can be ridden faster with a bigger margin for error.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Are they faster? Are they safer?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Hmm, I rarely go down on my XC bikes, but on my short stem, wide bar, slack AM bike I wear pads because there is a much greater chance I will go down or over the bars. This mainly has to do with the fact that the AM bike allows me to (or makes me think) I can ride much more dangerous terrain than what I can do on my XC bike.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Hahaha, you can't be serious.
> So your argument is to give a rider less safer equipment for a given speed so it pushed him to ride slower?
> 
> This is just not a good idea. Neither for an advanced rider, neither for a beginner.
> ...


Pretty much. I think he's just searching for reasons for it to be bad.

If you just take a rider and put them on a more downhill orientated bike, they're still going to have the perceptions from riding that less downhill capable bike limiting them.

It's not like jumping on a DH bike makes you ride like Aaron Gwin. If you make a conscious effort on that first run, you can ride faster than you could on the less DH orientated bike, but not much. It's very much a process.



Le Duke said:


> Are they faster? Are they safer?


Ultimately, yes...that's why pros use them in competition. All it takes is one ride and one familiar challenging section where you tell yourself, "I'm going to brake just a little less here and see what happens" to see the difference.

My first ride on a DH bike, I almost ran into the back of my buddy on his trail bike because of that. I thought there was a big enough gap between us for that kind of experiment, turns out there really wasn't because the way the bike handled the section gave me even more confidence than I thought it would....and that's just from going from a 6" enduro bike to an 8" DH bike with very similar tires and brakes. It kinda blew my mind how much of a difference there was.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

DH bikes are in a whole different league. I swear a 100mm XC FS is closer to a 6 inch trail bike then trail bike is to a DH bike.

I can't put my finger one particular thing but a DH bike changes everything.



richde said:


> My first ride on a DH bike, I almost ran into the back of my buddy on his trail bike because of that. I thought there was a big enough gap between us for that kind of experiment, turns out there really wasn't because the way the bike handled the section gave me even more confidence than I thought it would....and that's just from going from a 6" enduro bike to an 8" DH bike with very similar tires and brakes. It kinda blew my mind how much of a difference there was.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I view bike riding differently. While downhills are fun, I do not live for them. I view the bike as an extension of the body. I want one that can cover a lot of ground in the most efficient manner fairly comfortably. That means an XC type bike that's not too heavy. I'm not adverse to dismounting and walking some technical sections. Too old to crash and burn. I'd rather live to ride another day. That said, I recently tried wider handlebars and shorter stems and like the change.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Oh, and one more thought. If you're riding more challenging terrain faster with the new geometry, is that really safer than riding the old-style geometry slower? I would argue that the new geometry is inviting less skilled riders to ride over their heads, which might mean fewer crashes, but bigger crashes.


No, it's just safer. Newbs are gonna crash and riding a less capable bike is not gonna help. Crashing is often not from going too fast, but not carrying enough speed or using too much brakes.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> No, it's just safer. Newbs are gonna crash and riding a less capable bike is not gonna help. Crashing is often not from going too fast, but not carrying enough speed or using too much brakes.


No, people often crash by riding above their abilities.

Obviously, most of you aren't football fans, as pads and helmets are often considered more dangerous, because they provide a false sense of security. This causes players to use their heads to tackle, causing neck injuries and brain trauma. I know some of you will disagree with everything I say just because you think you can, but use your brains and think something through for once.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> Hahaha, you can't be serious.
> So your argument is to give a rider less safer equipment for a given speed so it pushed him to ride slower?
> 
> This is just not a good idea. Neither for an advanced rider, neither for a beginner.
> ...


With higher consequences.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> With higher consequences.


 Of course faster = more risk, but going downhill fast on a bike that is suited to going downhill fast is obviously going to be easier/safer/lesslikelytoresultindeathorsevereinjury than going downhill fast on a twitchy-handling bike that's more suited to climbing hills. Surely that's not too hard to understand??


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

jazzanova said:


> Hahaha, you can't be serious.
> So your argument is to give a rider less safer equipment for a given speed so it pushed him to ride slower?
> 
> This is just not a good idea. Neither for an advanced rider, neither for a beginner.
> ...


You just said a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with what you quoted.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, people often crash by riding above their abilities.


That right there is the crux of the matter. Jumping on a bike isn't going to make you suddenly ride way over your head, no matter how much you like to think it will. Unless, of course, they're complete idiots, and in that case, the bike has nothing to do with it.

What you're also missing is that "above their abilities" on a less capable bike can often be "within your abilities" on a more capable bike.

No bike is going to propel you faster than you intended to, stop acting like a helicopter parent talking about 200hp motorcycles.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Obviously, most of you aren't football fans,


Obviously


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You guys really can't figure out the point I was making? I'll try and spell it out a little more clearly. Stay with me, because I can't just type slower to give you time to comprehend this. 

If you ride on less challenging terrain on any bike, any bike at all, it will be safer than riding a more challenging trail on that same bike. Any bike at all. The consequences are less severe if you do get over your head and crash. If you have the older geometry, it is easier to reach the limits of the bike on many typed of trails, particularly the types of trails that people tend to crash on. Now, I realize this sounds contradictory, so really focus here... 

People will ride slower and in more control when they feel they are on the edge of the bike's capabilities. Since those capabilities are less than a bike with this new geometry, people are more in control more often, which means if they do crash, it probably won't be as bad. 

Still with me? Having all this travel, slacker and lower geometry, and a rearward weight bias is very confidence-inspiring on technical trails, and this can get inexperienced (or experienced) riders into trouble if they do reach the limits of the bike or their skills. Yes, obviously, this limit will be at faster speeds and/or in more challenging terrain, which is exactly where you don't want to get in over your head. 

Does that make sense? This isn't an argument that all inexperienced riders should be on 130mm stems and rigid bikes with cantilevers. Ok? I'm just saying that this old geometry isn't the death trap that many of you are making it out to be, because it requires the rider to pay attention and ride within their limits.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> Of course faster = more risk, but going downhill fast on a bike that is suited to going downhill fast is obviously going to be easier/safer/lesslikelytoresultindeathorsevereinjury than going downhill fast on a twitchy-handling bike that's more suited to climbing hills. Surely that's not too hard to understand??


Not what I said. Of course this new geometry is inherently safer if compared directly head to head with older geometry, but that isn't the entire picture. Surely you can differentiate what I actually said from what you thought I said?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys really can't figure out the point I was making? I'll try and spell it out a little more clearly. Stay with me, because I can't just type slower to give you time to comprehend this.
> 
> If you ride on less challenging terrain on any bike, any bike at all, it will be safer than riding a more challenging trail on that same bike. Any bike at all. The consequences are less severe if you do get over your head and crash. If you have the older geometry, it is easier to reach the limits of the bike on many typed of trails, particularly the types of trails that people tend to crash on. Now, I realize this sounds contradictory, so really focus here...
> 
> ...


Nope, still nothing.
Please try again. Maybe if you type just a bit slower...


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Pretty sure this thread has been defeated, Salsa Cycles is the offending party - making tools which measure and include such long stem sizes and do not 'buzz' or light-up with warnings when above say 3- 4mm in length. 
35 pages to me is material for a industry-wide class action lawsuit against a) the metric and std. pencil pouch ruler b) the Equator c) Evolution of man and woman d) possibly Time itself.
I will - of course - be filing my paperwork downtown in an hour, and posting information _only here_ for joining this quest for truth and livable bike sizes.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, people often crash by riding above their abilities.
> 
> Obviously, most of you aren't football fans, as pads and helmets are often considered more dangerous, because they provide a false sense of security. This causes players to use their heads to tackle, causing neck injuries and brain trauma. I know some of you will disagree with everything I say just because you think you can, but use your brains and think something through for once.


the difference is football you are trying to hit thing and MTB you are not trying to hit things.

I crash far less on my short stems bikes than I did on my long stem(80mm) bikes.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys really can't figure out the point I was making? I'll try and spell it out a little more clearly. Stay with me, because I can't just type slower to give you time to comprehend this.
> 
> If you ride on less challenging terrain on any bike, any bike at all, it will be safer than riding a more challenging trail on that same bike. Any bike at all. The consequences are less severe if you do get over your head and crash. If you have the older geometry, it is easier to reach the limits of the bike on many typed of trails, particularly the types of trails that people tend to crash on. Now, I realize this sounds contradictory, so really focus here...
> 
> ...


lol ride with in limits.

I am pretty sure I everyone rides with in their limits, no one is out there and being like that only a 1 in 10 chance I make it, let try that. NO ONE does that.

With that said there is so much un forseen challenge to trail riding that having a more forgiving a bike is a good thing. The old school bike are for sure death traps around here, because since the early 00s people have been riding slack, short stem bike sized up. the trails are built with that idea in mind.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Still with me? Having all this travel, slacker and lower geometry, and a rearward weight bias is very confidence-inspiring on technical trails, and this can get inexperienced (or experienced) riders into trouble if they do reach the limits of the bike or their skills. Yes, obviously, this limit will be at faster speeds and/or in more challenging terrain, which is exactly where you don't want to get in over your head.
> 
> Does that make sense? This isn't an argument that all inexperienced riders should be on 130mm stems and rigid bikes with cantilevers. Ok? I'm just saying that this old geometry isn't the death trap that many of you are making it out to be, because it requires the rider to pay attention and ride within their limits.


Sorry, but you're wrong. When the old geometry bikes crash it's often an endo or high-side where the rider gets slammed face first into the ground. New geometry bikes usually just slide out and drop you on your side, you get a few bruises and lose some skin. I've crashed my new bike more this season than I did with my old ones in the past 5 years, and yet I've spent far less time off the bike.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I cannot believe how dense, short-sighted, ignorant, stubborn, and flat-out stupid you people are. Maybe it just translates that way on the internet, but I have lost a lot of faith in humanity. If you can't understand how riding within your limits on whatever bike you have isn't safer, and riding on less dangerous terrain or riding slower through it isn't safer, then I have no desire whatsoever to try to discuss things with any of you. You focus on things that I have never said or twist things I did say to fit your twisted desire to formulate an argument out of nothing.
> 
> Since I have nothing else to discuss with you guys anymore, I'm going to go ahead and get myself banned by saying what I've been inferring over the last few weeks.
> 
> You people are ****ing stupid. Absolutely, completely moronic with no common sense, ability to reason, or willingness to even consider other peoples' viewpoints. I know it's just the internet, which is why I don't really give a damn about being banned. You people are ****ing tools. Farewell!


I'd say, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. But, you can't even get yourself banned. That's sad!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'd say, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. But, you can't even get yourself banned. That's sad, *******!


If I did, it would be worth it. You and richde are the two biggest douches I have ever interacted with.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> You crash less because your stem is now less then your 80mm stem? Damn you are completely freakin crazy!


80 to 35 is pretty huge .


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Everything has it's place now. XC geo has it's place in pure XC. Whereas in the 90's they rode those Euckers on everything.

Today, a frame's climbing prowess is helped enough by carbon weight savings and more efficient suspension characteristics, you can sacrifice some of the advantages of old geo / smaller frames and still climb well enough, while descending and airing better.

If you rode a bike with "new geo" from 8 years ago it would be a heavy bouncy aluminum DH bike. Now dang similar slack, long wheelbase, long travel bikes can do more because they don't have to weigh as much and the suspension can climb AND descend without totally sacrificing one for the other.

Saying a new 160mm travel bike is safer than an old school long stem rigid is like saying a race car is safer than a pair of walking shoes. If you roll both the same way on the same track, of course the race car is safer. If you use each of them within their current place in cycling meta-quiver, I have to contend that the type of riding that you'd do on a old school bike is safer.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)




----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> If I did, it would be worth it. You and richde are the two biggest douches I have ever interacted with.


Maybe because you're the kind of idiot that blames the inanimate object when the operator does something wrong.

It's clear that you've either never ridden the kind of bike you're referring to or just making blanket, fact-free assumptions to justify maintaining your outdated opinions.

To say that a bike can be blamed for a rider getting in over their head, a more capable bike at that, is suggestive of a learning disability.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> 80 to 35 is pretty huge .


I'd like to see some calculations on this. In my opinion, stem length has little to do with endo issues. It's the length of the front-center of the bike. The center of gravity (CG), which is approximately at your navel, rotates about where the front tire contacts the ground. Shorter or longer stems don't do much to move the CG.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

MikeDee said:


> I'd like to see some calculations on this. In my opinion, stem length has little to do with endo issues. It's the length of the front-center of the bike. The center of gravity (CG), which is approximately at your navel, rotates about where the front tire contacts the ground. Shorter or longer stems don't do much to move the CG.


Like bringing carbon-dated fossils to a creationists convention. Not likely to get you far...


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

MikeDee said:


> I'd like to see some calculations on this. In my opinion, stem length has little to do with endo issues. It's the length of the front-center of the bike. The center of gravity (CG), which is approximately at your navel, rotates about where the front tire contacts the ground. Shorter or longer stems don't do much to move the CG.


the front center for sure got longer.

I went from a size M Anthem X29er with a 100mm fork and 80mm stem

to a size L Trance 27.5 with a 160mm fork and a 35mm stem.

you can do the math.

The thing is I could not have been on a Large trance with out 35mm stem. My girlfriend size M trance fits me with a 70-80mm stem but the steering feel fell all funny and its for sure is not as stable.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I'd like to see some calculations on this. In my opinion, stem length has little to do with endo issues. It's the length of the front-center of the bike. The center of gravity (CG), which is approximately at your navel, rotates about where the front tire contacts the ground. Shorter or longer stems don't do much to move the CG.


Depends on what kind of a change in length you're talking about.

A small change is going to make more of a difference in how it feels more than anything else, but feel is often a limiting factor.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Unless the rider knows how to control a 120mm riser stem or a 25mm P-Dent stem, there's no tendency of handling to be favored w/ either-or. 
The better of half the contributors to this thread probably have handlebars rotated out-of-whack, unnecessary stem spacer height/bar height and choose components by what is trend setting. 
Stem length makes no sense to how any actually pick their lines on trail, or how deep the bike can be put. 

There. 

Start a new thread for 'picking out lines' and watch the bikes drop parts by the boxful.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

MikeDee said:


> I'd like to see some calculations on this. In my opinion, stem length has little to do with endo issues. It's the length of the front-center of the bike. The center of gravity (CG), which is approximately at your navel, rotates about where the front tire contacts the ground. Shorter or longer stems don't do much to move the CG.


I'm pretty sure the whole premise of the stem thing is related to fit and geo, so you can't single out the stem without considering the others.

What you say is true, to my estimate, but the thing is if the geo is changed to move the front contact farther forward by changing the HTA and making the reach longer, the stem must get shorter to fit the rider properly. So really now you have changed the relationship between the riders COM and the front tire contact point, thus changing both the static and dynamic weight distributions and moments that will cause certain handling or unstable conditions. Going OTB is not only affected by your CG and it's relation to the front tire in terms of height, but also the front tire in terms of how much weight is applied, and that is a direct function of position aft the front tire (if you get ahead, you are in big trouble).

It never has been about the stem, and I think everyone that has some knowledge of the physics can recognize that quickly. It's the interaction between the all the things that effect the weight distribution and moment arms to between the rider and the ground.

All things equal, if a bike was designed for a long stem, it's probably going to ride a lot better with a long stem. Just putting a shorter stem on it will make the rider more erect and probably cause a fit issue, and not necessarily make them ride better or more stable. Changing the entire system to fit the rider and shift the weight will however give better results, especially descending, if that is the goal. You do however have the option to move dynamically further back with a shorter stem on a bike that was normally using a longer one, but the fit issue I believe would more than negate any benefits.

Like with skis, XC riders make a lot of compromises going down to be fast going up and on flats. A lot of rec riders put more on the down as the fun factor than the other two, so I can see why the trend is such.

I feel fine riding an XC bike around, even on steep stuff. I could ride faster or in more control with a bike that was tuned more for descending, but I'm ok with riding the way I do. I don't go OTB - I don't ride descents fast enough for that to be a major concern, and I feel comfortable on an XC bike. I could certainly add more front bias by lower my handlebars, but it's not going to be earth shattering. I don't find it a very comfy way to ride so I shift my weight forward when I climb. I don't need to move back as much descending. On moderate terrain I can stay pretty neutral on the bike.

I feel like all this has been hashed out and if you don't get it, you never will I guess. It seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> Maybe it is because the seat to bar changes from medium to large?
> 
> I could change the stem from 120 to 35 and still not wreck and still ride fast no matter what the set up is, learn skills and stop telling everyone that stem size equates skills that you lack.


stem size let you ride with more confidence which can lead to more skills. Seat to bar is fairly meaningless on bike with a dropper though, since the seat is never actually high when I am riding anything tech. With that said my Trance actually has lower bars than my Anthem.

It better than havng a bike that punishes you for a mistake.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> stem size let you ride with more confidence which can lead to more skills. Seat to bar is fairly meaningless on bike with a dropper though, since the seat is never actually high when I am riding anything tech. With that said my Trance actually has lower bars than my Anthem.
> 
> It better than havng a bike that punishes you for a mistake.


So you have never had to do any significant pedaling... That clarifies everything you've posted in this thread!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So you have never had to do any significant pedaling... That clarifies everything you've posted in this thread!


hahhahahaha dude I am Cat 1 XC racer and have done 50 and 100 milers and done 24 hour solo as well. but your RIGHT I dont pedal at all....

Do you race XC at all?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> hahhahahaha dude I am Cat 1 XC racer and have done 50 and 100 milers and done 24 hour solo as well. but your RIGHT I dont pedal at all....
> 
> Do you race XC at all?


Lolololololol! I raced some cross-country back in the day, not that has anything to do with anything other than your ego. If you actually do any seated climbing, you would understand how important your seated position is. Yes, a big part of that includes the distance from seat to bar.

Are you one of those racers that doesn't know how to change a flat or set up their own bike? I'm getting the strong impression that you are.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lolololololol! I raced some cross-country back in the day, not that has anything to do with anything other than your ego. If you actually do any seated climbing, you would understand how important your seated position is. Yes, a big part of that includes the distance from seat to bar.
> 
> Are you one of those racers that doesn't know how to change a flat or set up their own bike? I'm getting the strong impression that you are.


I invented Ghetto(split tube) tubeless in 2004 and build my own bikes from scratch including once welding my own frame. Including wheels, modifying suspension internally and bleeding brakes. I do all of my own work.

It small potatoes compared to build a road race car from scratch.

My comment on bar to seat meant that when taclking tech sections with a modern bike with a dropper bar to seat is fairly meaningless. For seated climbing it sure does matter.










I actually run a fair amount of handle bar drop on both my current MTBs. With a dropper I find I can actually run a lower handlebar than before a dropper because with out the seat in the way I can run a much more aggresive climbing position and still be even better on the DH.

BTW that Honzo you see.

I built the wheels from scratch

I modified the shim stack in the pike for my riding style and installed my own bottomless token(mindlessly easy)

and I built the entire bike, well I did not weld that frame or set up a lathe to build the parts but yeah I build the damn thing piece by piece by piece.

IMO you are not real cyclist till you can work on everything on your own bikes.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> It better than havng a bike that punishes you for a mistake.


/thread.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I invented Ghetto(split tube) tubeless in 2004.
> 
> Then why are there split tube ghetto tubeless threads on various websites from 2003? Here's one: Anyone running tubeless? What setup? What results? - North Shore Mountain Biking Forums
> 
> My comment on bar to seat meant that when taclking tech sections with a modern bike with a dropper bar to seat is fairly meaningless. For seated climbing it sure does matter.


That's not what you said, but that's what you should have said.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> /thread.


Another way to look at a forgiving bike is a bike that takes the fun out of it. That's the whole point if a discussion. There may be more than one truth.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's not what you said, but that's what you should have said.


I had no idea about MTB internet forums but I did indeed come up with split tube by myself. If someone beat me to it, then so be it.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Another way to look at a forgiving bike is a bike that takes the fun out of it. That's the whole point if a discussion. There may be more than one truth.


does not really. Its more fun to be riding then it is to be falling or scared.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

David R said:


> /thread.


Not gonna happen, haha.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I had no idea about MTB internet forums but I did indeed come up with split tube by myself. If someone beat me to it, then so be it.


So, did you invent the Internet too?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Might as well shoot for 50 pages eh, we're over half way there!



mountainbiker24 said:


> Another way to look at a forgiving bike is a bike that takes the fun out of it.


That's only if you're a pessimist (or a sadist!). Yes I know there's a cult-level group of people who like riding single-speeds, rigid and/or retro bikes for the fun of it, and yes it does present a different set of challenges. But for the most part, having a more forgiving bike doesn't make it less fun, usually the opposite. Falling isn't fun, hanging on for dear life as you rattle down a trail isn't fun, and having to drag your balls on the back tyre trying to get your weight far enough back on the steep stuff is certainly not fun.

And if you're talking about riding a bike that makes things more challenging, maybe that's exactly what all those people who pedal 30lb+ freeride bikes up hills are doing!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I invented Ghetto(split tube) tubeless in 2004


Jesus.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mbmb65 said:


> So, did you invent the Internet too?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

David R said:


> Might as well shoot for 50 pages eh, we're over half way there!
> 
> That's only if you're a pessimist (or a sadist!). Yes I know there's a cult-level group of people who like riding single-speeds, rigid and/or retro bikes for the fun of it, and yes it does present a different set of challenges. But for the most part, having a more forgiving bike doesn't make it less fun, usually the opposite. Falling isn't fun, hanging on for dear life as you rattle down a trail isn't fun, and having to drag your balls on the back tyre trying to get your weight far enough back on the steep stuff is certainly not fun.
> 
> And if you're talking about riding a bike that makes things more challenging, maybe that's exactly what all those people who pedal 30lb+ freeride bikes up hills are doing!


Some people need all the help they can buy. Others just go with it and have fun without spending a retarded amount of money on a toy. Which one are you?

Riding bikes is fun.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

DaveVt said:


> Some people need all the help they can buy. Others just go with it and have fun without spending a retarded amount of money on a toy. Which one are you?


So if I spend money on a nice bike I'm a retard who can't ride and doesn't have fun?

Ok then...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

DaveVt said:


> Some people need all the help they can buy. Others just go with it and have fun without spending a retarded amount of money on a toy. Which one are you?
> 
> Riding bikes is fun.


Roll eyes...


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Roll eyes...


Agree 100%. Its all about priorities.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

DaveVt said:


> Some people need all the help they can buy. Others just go with it and have fun without spending a retarded amount of money on a toy. Which one are you?





David R said:


> So if I spend money on a nice bike I'm a retard who can't ride and doesn't have fun?
> 
> Ok then...


You guys are really bad at reading the things you quote.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> There is no way you are a CAT 1 XC racer with the crap azz skills you posess, please screenshot that CAT 1 license for us.


crapp sass skills. Like I said I would love for you to actually ride with me.

https://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=298619

realize that my other longer races are mostly not though USA cycling.

I am also Cat 2 cross and Cat 3 road......


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

David R said:


> So if I spend money on a nice bike I'm a retard who can't ride and doesn't have fun?
> 
> Ok then...


Wow...not at all what I said. My point was there might be other reasons then sadism for not having a bike with the newest geometry. New MTN bikes are prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. Myself included. I have a 14 year old SS HT and every time I ride I have fun and don't feel like I need a new bike....Here in rural VT a lot of people ride rigid 29ers because it's a good mix of smooth and cheap. They rather have a nice rigid 29er SS then a POS "all mtn" for the same $. Riding bikes is fun. No matter what bike.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys really can't figure out the point I was making? I'll try and spell it out a little more clearly. Stay with me, because I can't just type slower to give you time to comprehend this.
> 
> If you ride on less challenging terrain on any bike, any bike at all, it will be safer than riding a more challenging trail on that same bike. Any bike at all. The consequences are less severe if you do get over your head and crash. If you have the older geometry, it is easier to reach the limits of the bike on many typed of trails, particularly the types of trails that people tend to crash on. Now, I realize this sounds contradictory, so really focus here...
> 
> ...


I get this - it's a pretty common and well recognised effect on behaviour - ie people take risk based on perception of risk, and perception of risk is actually pretty poor.

A downhill bike was mentioned earlier, but I'd suggest a downhill bike is ridden much faster because the rider has a full faced helmet on, knee, elbow and body pads as well as the geometry and effectiveness of the bike.

In the same way, a dropper post may well owe as much to the confidence it gives riders as to actual change in COG in terms of improving people's downhill times.

Separating out the 2, is no mean feat.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

jazzanova said:


> Agree 100%. Its all about priorities.


Some people like Mtn biking but the thought of dropping 4-8 thousand dollars on a bike seems, ahem, excessive. Those people are called "Normal". Yes, normal people like MTN biking too, and with the new style of trail construction there's plenty of places where a descent rigid 29er can be a lot of fun. No matter what stem length because the trails NEVER exceed 8% grade.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


No less ridiculous than your earlier claim.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mbmb65 said:


> No less ridiculous than your earlier claim.


inventing something that has been around longer than I have been alived, and and saying I invented something that I never read on the internet is a pretty exaggerated claim.

strawman.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

You do realize that you posted links that put you in Cat 2.....



BushwackerinPA said:


> crapp sass skills. Like I said I would love for you to actually ride with me.
> 
> https://www.usacycling.org/results/?compid=298619
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

I read, "You know that endure you weren't at....WELL.... I showed up with a massive ego thinking I was gonna lay it down on everyone on my sweet all mountain SS HT...(I do on my strava times) Well, I got embarrassed and flew off course 4 times and took such shitty lines I broke my forks and almost couldn't finish. So, you know, I pretty much kill it."



BushwackerinPA said:


> you know that enduro you were not at....
> 
> you did not see me go under the over head high course tape 4 times in the course. Get lost in a campground because it did not have enough signage and then develop a weird clunking noise on my last run. a F UCKING single speed meaning I could nt pedal to make up time. I literally entered for shits and giggle as the only person 2 use a single speed and one of 2 hardtails. No preride of the where the taped had been placed, and no idea of what I was doing.
> 
> ...


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> inventing something that has been around longer than I have been alived, and and saying I invented something that I never read on the internet is a pretty exaggerated claim.
> 
> strawman.


Like I know your age and stuff. How long do you think the nets have been around?

Tinman


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> I read, "You know that endure you weren't at....WELL.... I showed up with a massive ego thinking I was gonna lay it down on everyone on my sweet all mountain SS HT...(I do on my strava times) Well, I got embarrassed and flew off course 4 times and took such shitty lines I broke my forks and almost couldn't finish. So, you know, I pretty much kill it."


and yet you still do not want to lay down 1k to actully race me. I suck and it would be an easy 1k.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mbmb65 said:


> Like I know your age and stuff. How long do you think the nets have been around?
> 
> Tinman


the first internets have been around since the early 1980s.....unless well you are Al gore.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

pharmaboy said:


> I get this - it's a pretty common and well recognised effect on behaviour - ie people take risk based on perception of risk, and perception of risk is actually pretty poor.
> 
> A downhill bike was mentioned earlier, but I'd suggest a downhill bike is ridden much faster because the rider has a full faced helmet on, knee, elbow and body pads as well as the geometry and effectiveness of the bike.
> 
> ...


you gain more confidence by being able to move your COM.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

So, why were the stems so long? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Crudley (Jan 27, 2006)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> So, why were the stems so long?


Must have been a good idea at the time :skep:

I had my share of OTB moments with a stupid 135mm long stem. Much less loss of skin with 100mm stem and in hindsight wondered why I didn't do it a lot earlier. Thankfully the 135mm stem cracked finally. Live and learn.

Maybe in the pre-suspension XC-ish era where a longer stem might help out of the saddle climbs where you stand up a crank till you can't do it anymore. Grind your teeth and muscle it up the hill bar ends and all. Helpful for that ....

but.....

Techy downhill bits at any speed felt like I was tempting fate with a spectacular OTB at any moment just to entertain my fluro wearing riding buddies.

I had a few of those where too much weight must have moved forward while your butt had to stretch out over the rear tyre to counteract it. Fun but awkward.

Sitting back and spinning for climbing which is a different technique. Thanks shorter stem and dual suspension for that one :thumbsup:


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Mr Crudley said:


> Must have been a good idea at the time :skep:
> 
> I had my share of OTB moments with a stupid 135mm long stem. Much less loss of skin with 100mm stem and in hindsight wondered why I didn't do it a lot earlier. Thankfully the 135mm stem cracked finally. Live and learn.
> 
> ...


Check out the stem I started on, when I had no idea what mountains bikes were...










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> So, why were the stems so long?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


because people were and still are trying to fit MTBs like road bikes.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Because read the first page.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Because read the first page.


It was a rhetorical question. Seems that it's a very complex subject for many.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> So, why were the stems so long?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk












Again, these are the people responsible. Take them to court.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> ... trying to fit MTBs like road bikes.


So they fit?
Exactly.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the first internets have been around since the early 1980s.....unless well you are Al gore.


I never thought I would feel the need to post this link, and yet, here we are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> the first internets have been around since the early 1980s.....unless well you are Al gore.


Yeah, but till the late '90s you paid by the MB and it was so expensive almost no one could afford it.
Internet Growth Statistics - the Global Village Online


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

^^haha...AOL days. I remember people racking up crazy high AOL bills.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> So, why were the stems so long?





Shayne said:


> So they fit?


So they fit old-fashioned frames designed with not enough reach.









My 2010 5spot vs my 2015 Warden, side by side, both large, both vertical, both rear axles in line. 5spot has 406mm reach, Warden has 460mm. Both chainstays are the same length despite the 27.5"wheels on the Warden, the seat is ever so slightly further forward on the Warden (in slack mode, 74* effective STA), but the key difference is that on the Turner I ran a 65mm stem and felt cramped, on the Warden I'm running a 40mm and it feels great. I may try a 50mm stem soon, but I want to try a couple of longer rides in the slack setting first as I suspect the slight reduction in STA might make it unnecessary. I could probably just keep the 40mmm, I'm comfortable on it and it handles great, but I think the 50mm may put me in a better position for the long forestry road hauls that make up a large portion of my riding. Or maybe I'll just go for something slightly wider than my currently 740mm bars...

Yes the wheelbase on the Warden looks a lot longer, partially due to the 65.5* HA vs 68.5* on the Turner, and partially because of the increased reach. I've only had one ride on the Warden so far, but we did some good tight technical trails and I noticed zero difference in the manoeuvrability of the bike. I see no reason why the longer reach + shorter stem wouldn't work just as well with a more conservative 67-68* HA for more XC-type bikes.

A small increase in wheelbase is a tiny trade-off for having your weight better positioned in the bike for descending. This is how mountain bikes should be built. There is no justification for old-fashioned road-bike geometry and 100mm+ stems on off-road bicycles.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

David R

Exactly right.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Oh, LOL!

What percentage of the market do these uber cool frames have?

Oh, right SFA. The market is absolutely dominated by companies like trek, giant, specialized, cannondale, even Santa Cruz these days. Knolly, transition etc are irrelevant to the wider bike market.

This is like claiming schweppes Cola is the future in carbonated beverages market!

What's next, the Earth really was flooded a mile deep across the surface?


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Love that you love your bikes David R, but seriously, we need to keep hold of reality - I haven't seen an XC bike with even a 110mm stem for a long time. On the floor they are generally 90 or 100, and have stayed that way for a looong time now.

The large majority of riders are way over biked - their bikes reflect not how they ride but how they wish they rode. In reality, the vast majority of riders find a typical XC track as technically challenging at speed, yet they buy bikes that only come into their own down 20% slopes and fast rough ground - yeah yeah, I was guilty of buying the 160mm travel slack bike once too - thought I was awesome, but it was quicker on 1% of tracks I rode, and much slower on 30%, and the overall fun factor just wasn't there.

Now, if I lived in Vancouver, things would be different........


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

pharmaboy said:


> The large majority of riders are way over biked - their bikes reflect not how they ride but how they wish they rode.


Don't think I said anything about suspension travel or being over-biked did I? I'm answering the original question with a simple statement that the reach measurement on the average mountain bike has been too short for too long, thus the longer stems. I didn't say everyone should ride 160mm slaked-out mini-DH bikes, in fact I said the very opposite; that we should see more xc-oriented bikes with similar 'long reach, short stem' designs.

A 30-50mm increase in wheelbase isn't much in the great scheme of things, but the change in stem length and what it does for the balance/handling is.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

R


David R said:


> Don't think I said anything about suspension travel or being over-biked did I? I'm answering the original question with a simple statement that the reach measurement on the average mountain bike has been too short for too long, thus the longer stems. I didn't say everyone should ride 160mm slaked-out mini-DH bikes, in fact I said the very opposite; that we should see more xc-oriented bikes with similar 'long reach, short stem' designs.
> 
> A 30-50mm increase in wheelbase isn't much in the great scheme of things, but the change in stem length and what it does for the balance/handling is.


Look, first, awesome empty beer collection.

Second. - how do you seperate the type of bike from its design?

My post is really in response to the "old fashioned" jibe which infers only the long TT, short stem is the way forward.

Longer top tubes are overwhelmingly found in small niche manufacturers in AM 140mm suspension and up bikes, while the market leaders are sticking with evolution of current designs and while they have moved well away from 120mm stems, it doesn't follow that if 20mm shorter is better than 40mm shorter must be better again.

Evolution is what improves the breed

With pretty much any change in design, if you are claiming an advantage, then if that advantage is real, then pretty much there has to be a disadvantage - if someone won't elucidate the disadvantages then it's advertising puffery.

One thing that also seems to be missing in this discussion is wheel size - the feeling of going over the front is so much different depending on wheel size it's not funny.

Now anecdote - I've changed 2 bikes quite dramatically, just by raising the hand position , widening bars by 30mm and shortening the stem by 20mm.

Now, if I were a niche bike manufacturer, I think convincing people they a need a new frame to achieve a similar outcome would be a great business building idea - lots more money in a frame than some bar and stem changes..........


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

David R said:


> So they fit old-fashioned frames designed with not enough reach....
> .... This is how mountain bikes should be built. There is no justification for old-fashioned road-bike geometry and 100mm+ stems on off-road bicycles.


We are going in F-ing circles. If the current setups chosen by the best riders in the world don't qualify as justification, then I am not sure what does. Here is Julien Absalon's 2015 setup, clearly says 100mm on the stem. I know the arguement is XC is for pussies, and these guys are special circumstance pros putting speed over comfort, and twitch over confidence. The fact remains that winning races and being one of the best climbers in the world, qualifies as justification.









A shorter wheelbase and smaller frame makes the bike lighter, faster uphill and nimbler through slight grade or uphill turns. A longer, larger frame gives more stability, a better riding position for downhill and promotes a generally more fun shredding style of riding. The stem is just a means to fit on either style of frame. Both have their place, and I doubt either one will be phased out anytime soon.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Was that frame custom-built for Absalon on numbers he's specified? Or is the 100mm stem the best option to get an ideal-for-XC-racing fit on an existing frame, for a pro racer who puts bread on the table by winning races, and would almost certainly pick a frame based on weight more than handling? 

And as for what the big manufacturers are doing, since when have they ever embraced radical change? From full suspension to fat bikes, it's almost always the smaller "boutique" brands that push the boundaries, try the new ideas, and when they work and look like they could prove popular the big brands will gradually adopt them ( gradually, because they're ideal is to make each years model slightly better/different enough to try and encourage people to upgrade as often as possible). We're already seeing a transition of the longer geometry progressing well into the trail bike market, with bikes like the Transition Scout, Santa Cruz 5010 v2, Knolly Endorphin etc. My guess is that will gradually continue to trickle down through almost the whole spectrum of recreational mountain bikes (XC racers being the possible exception). 

We've come this far, I'd love to be able to chuck my 1995 Marin Nail Trail in behind the 5spot to add to the comparison, I guess only time will tell where we go from here.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Lets get back on topic!
> 
> " BushwackerinPA
> BushwackerinPA is online now
> ...


Ah yes, but he's much more extraordinary than most.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

David R said:


> So they fit old-fashioned frames designed with not enough reach.
> 
> My 2010 5spot vs my 2015 Warden, 5spot has 406mm reach, Warden has 460mm.


The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.

The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on it for a good fit. If I ran a 50mm on it I'd be so upright that I may as well ride a unicycle.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Santa Cruz just revamped the Bronson and 5010 and lengthened the reach & top tubes. Interesting that the 5010 is has similar geometry to the Scout now. I believe the Scout will come out in Carbon next year, which is the only advantage the big companies have. They have the money to build carbon molds whenever they want while smaller companies can't afford to blow it. The big companies don't seem to be setting many trends lately, but playing catch up instead.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I invented short stems back in the mid 70's.

Also swiss cheese.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

I know the guy who invented the goatee, does that count?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

This guy who lives down the street from me invented inventing. True story.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Circlip said:


> This guy who lives down the street from me invented inventing. True story.


Did he sell out to a large multi national corporation?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mbmb65 said:


> Ah yes, but he's much more extraordinary than most.


I have 32 inches thighs.










I also suffer on steep climbs.....


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

knutso said:


> A shorter wheelbase and smaller frame makes the bike lighter, faster uphill and nimbler through slight grade or uphill turns. A longer, larger frame gives more stability, a better riding position for downhill and promotes a generally more fun shredding style of riding. The stem is just a means to fit on either style of frame. Both have their place, and I doubt either one will be phased out anytime soon.


Ding Ding Ding!



David R said:


> A small increase in wheelbase is a tiny trade-off for having your weight better positioned in the bike for descending. This is how mountain bikes should be built. There is no justification for old-fashioned road-bike geometry and 100mm+ stems on off-road bicycles.


So once again, one person's experience trumps every other person's experiences in the world, because that proves there is no other justification? Look, people, just because something works better for you doesn't prove that it is better for everybody in every situation. I don't know why this is so frickin' difficult for people to understand. Let me put it this way... I don't take steroids, because they would not be worth the side-effects to me. Other people do, because they prefer the benefits and are willing to deal with the side-effects. Or how about this... Big ass tires and lifted trucks are very popular down here in Western NC, but I don't have any because I don't need them driving to work or the trails. Or maybe this... Lamborghinis are better than Toyotas because they are faster! Never mind that some people prefer gas mileage or don't care about accelerating super quickly to the next stop light or going 200 mph.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Don't worry mate, I knew someone in the 90's who was adamant that thumb shifters were the only way to change gears on a mountain bike, and we'd all be cursing/regretting/hating those under-bar-knee-smashing, multi-lever-over-complicated, unreliable, expensive, and unadjustable trigger shifters. Not sure he ever completely came round but the world keeps turning...

Shayne; post a pic, tell us the brand and the year, do you have ridiculously long arms? Feel free to do more than just say "my bike has this, so there".


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

BushwackerinPA said:


> and yet you still do not want to lay down 1k to actully race me. I suck and it would be an easy 1k.


You mean 1 G? I'm not the one telling everyone they have to listen to me because I'm so awesome.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> Don't worry mate, I knew someone in the 90's who was adamant that thumb shifters were the only way to change gears on a mountain bike, and we'd all be cursing/regretting/hating those under-bar-knee-smashing, multi-lever-over-complicated, unreliable, expensive, and unadjustable trigger shifters. Not sure he ever completely came round but the world keeps turning...


This isn't about the same thing. Geometry is more about intended usage and personal preference than better all-out performance.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Y'll invented sucking donkey ****. And, I have no idea why! Maybe you guys were bored.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

David R said:


> Was that frame custom-built for Absalon on numbers he's specified? Or is the 100mm stem the best option to get an ideal-for-XC-racing fit on an existing frame....


Undoubtedly, the justification for that 100mm stem comes from the cumulative thinking of BMC's top engineers and mechanics, as well as the best off road climber alive. Pretty valid.

I don't think a change in wheelbase and reach is anything radical. People have always had the option to size up and have those changes, especially on longer travel bikes that incorporate a lower slung top tube. You just didn't see that happening much. Sizing down is still practiced almost universally in road cycling and by the likes of probably the steeziest DH rider alive Ratboy Bryceland. There is undoubtedly a benefit to doing so, both physics and the top level of cycling provide proof of that.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

39 pages on stem length and still counting.

If you compare the modern trail bike of 2015 to the trail bike 1995 there are huge difference. Suspension, brakes, tires that actually grip, geometry, dropper post and yes shorter stems. Of all those things I suspect stem length is the least significant.

Tonight as I was riding my trail bike, which has a short stem and wide bars on it, and absolutely rips, I couldn't help but think "this bike would still crush the descents if it had a 100mm stem on it"


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

knutso said:


> I don't think a change in wheelbase and reach is anything radical. People have always had the option to size up and have those changes, especially on longer travel bikes that incorporate a lower slung top tube. You just didn't see that happening much.


Look at the relationship between reach and seat tube length as sizes go up and down, traditionally going from M to L gives an increase in seat tube length that is roughly double the amount the reach increases. Why? Who knows, blame roadies?

Speaking of Ratboy, check out that long stem!










I doubt he'd be running that size frame and stem combo on the shorter old V1 Bronson...


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

David R said:


> ...
> I doubt he'd be running that size frame and stem combo on the shorter old V1 Bronson...


I am talking about the bike he rides in competition, not new product marketing videos.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

LMN said:


> 39 pages on stem length and still counting.
> 
> If you compare the modern trail bike of 2015 to the trail bike 1995 there are huge difference. Suspension, brakes, tires that actually grip, geometry, dropper post and yes shorter stems. Of all those things I suspect stem length is the least significant.
> 
> Tonight as I was riding my trail bike, which has a short stem and wide bars on it, and absolutely rips, I couldn't help but think "this bike would still crush the descents if it had a 100mm stem on it"


In an effort to get over the 40 page mark, please install that 100mm stem and post your comparisons. Photos, graphs, and pie charts are encouraged. I'm certain you have a 100 in the parts bin


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

knutso said:


> I am talking about the bike he rides in competition, not new product marketing videos.


60mm??

On the longer side for a DH bike, but hardly exceptional IMO. But again, he's a pro racer who makes his money going fast in a very specialised discipline on fairly consistent courses, on the bike his sponsor provides for him. Recreational riders have a whole lot more to consider (unless they want a bike for a similarly specific range of activities), and also have the option to choose whatever bike they want from any manufacturer to get the ideal fit they require without having to use things like longer-than-ideal stems, layback seatposts, or deal with inadequate stand-over or not enough room for running a good length dropper. And yes, obviously there's going to be exceptions; people with short torso or legs, or log arms/legs, we're not all built identically...

To quote the article where you found the pic of Absalon's stem; "Absalon is a rider who trades in raw power and as a result has often elected to race hardtails whilst his competition has been taming the ever more technical UCI World Cup tracks on full-suspenion machines.". That to me shows how little relevance there is in his set up for the average joe who just wants to go out and have fun on the trails.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Going with a 60mm stem on a DH bike is sizing down a frame size. He says why he is doing so at 3:10.

Riding hard-tails, rigids and non-boutique frames is irrelevant, yet 99.9% of cyclists all over the world are on that end of the spectrum. That's perplexing.

Weight and wheelbase aren't even valid amongst justifications for bike set-ups, yet at the top level of all cycling disciplines, riders consistently sacrifice the gains of larger frames for those that come with smaller ones.

I am not arguing that long low frames aren't great. They are. Yet to say that there is zero justification to run a longer stem on a smaller frame, is radical.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Santa Cruz just revamped the Bronson and 5010 and lengthened the reach & top tubes.


Bronson 2 review on Singletracks - Summary

Too long, too slack. Not as good as Bronson 1. Not as good as Nomad which has shorter reach, is better descender and just as good of a climber.

Pretty terrible review overall. A lot of nit picks that weren't geo related either. The suspension wasn't as good, not even the Pike up front? (author possibly attributes this to the geo as well).

Test Ride Review: The Updated Santa Cruz Bronson CC | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

The short stem zealots would gain a lot of credibility if they didn't say dumb stuff like:

1. The best riders in the world ride crappy bikes and only win because they are such great riders.
2. The best riders in the world are given bikes by their sponsers which don't fit, and have to compromise their riding positions, but win anyway.
3. The best riders in the world only ride the set ups they do because they haven't tried better set ups, and if they tried (your) cool bike they'd perform better than they do with their current ride. 
4. The best riders in the world just don't know that they are riding sub optimal geometry.
5. XC race courses don't represent what real riders ride, so winning doesn't mean anything.
6. Being the fastest on an XC race course doesn't mean anything, yet short stems are always better because they make you faster. 

It might seem I'm picking on David R, but there have been others who have said that same kind of craziness in this thread.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

David R said:


> 60mm??
> 
> On the longer side for a DH bike, but hardly exceptional IMO.


The point is obviously aimed at people who think shorter is always better, which has been claimed more than once. "I'll never ride anything longer than a 50", "I need a frame where I can run a 35", etc. 
Fine and dandy if that's what you are in to, but certainly no universal truth to be found here.

Ratboy lengthened his stem to get more weight on the front, so I'm sure there are other riders in this world besides ratboy who could find an overall benefit to lengthening their stem.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

knutso said:


> we are going in f-ing circles.


4-t! 4-t! 4-t! 4-t! 4-t! 4-t!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

David R said:


> A 30-50mm increase in wheelbase is a lot in the great scheme of things, but the change in stem length and what it does for the balance/handling is no big deal.


Fixed your post.

Round and round we go...


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I had a comprehensive "This vs. That" thread that would have settled all of this, but it was deleted. Sorry.

You guys just gotta keep debating... the world is counting on you.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Zowie said:


> I had a comprehensive "This vs. That" thread that would have settled all of this, but it was deleted. Sorry.
> 
> You guys just gotta keep debating... the world is counting on you.


Salsa Size-o-Matic. Tomato-Tomato. Potato-Potato. The debate always begins-again from there, this thread has graced a record number of Toilets in the process. That's the next cash-cow - sensory Toilet Lids which can read Internet Web Traffic, and which threads belong in the crapper.

This thread is useful!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)




----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> WOW, the short stem zealots will read that and have a pitchfork party!


would love to see video of Greg Heil on a pump track. I am guessing his skills are not that strong. Heck I would love to see video of you on a pump track while we are at it.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> Yea, because when I am climbing 4000' in elevation I am thinking about how great this would be on a pump track. Dude, do you even read what you write? This is MTBR not BMX high!


ummm if you can nt ride a pump track with out pedaling you seriously are awful at MTBing or your has a set up that will not let you ride anything technical or pumpy well at all.

That is is why I would love to see a video of you on a pump track, and video of the guy who said the new bronson is crap. If I had to guess you are unable to ride one well.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

If we were basing our bike buying decisions on whatever would be best on a pump track, we'd all be trail riding on bmx bikes

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> ummm if you can nt ride a pump track with out pedaling you seriously are awful at MTBing or your has a set up that will not let you ride anything technical or pumpy well at all.
> 
> That is is why I would love to see a video of you on a pump track, and video of the guy who said the new bronson is crap. If I had to guess you are unable to ride one well.


Seriously dude? That's just absurd and you clearly have no idea what your talking about. Do you even lift, bro? Actual mountain biking and pump track riding really have no relation what so ever. Different worms all together.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

knutso said:


> Weight and wheelbase aren't even valid amongst justifications for bike set-ups, yet at the top level of all cycling disciplines, riders consistently sacrifice the gains of larger frames for those that come with smaller ones.
> 
> I am not arguing that long low frames aren't great. They are. Yet to say that there is zero justification to run a longer stem on a smaller frame, is radical.


If you're going to use the word "consistently", could you post up the rest of the current crop of down-hill racers frame/stem set ups just to show ratboy isn't a one-off oddity? I can't, I haven't been interested in racing since the days of Tomac and Herbold All I'm interested in is the fun-factor on the trail, and last time I checked the pro's don't win prizes for having fun. Incidentally, I ride with a guy who probably should be on an XL, but rides an L, but not with a long stem because of how it handles. I can't keep up with him going downhill....

I'm sure there are cases/situations where running a [slightly] longer stem may suit an individual person better. But I still believe they are exceptions, and I also believe the industry agrees given the current progression in trail-bike geometry. But hey, if someone is having fun with two wheels on dirt, then that's what it's all about. More power to them.

And smilinsteve; one swallow does not make a summer. Would you like me to start posting reviews with positive feedback for longer geo/short-stem bikes? I only skim-read the Bronson article, but it sounds to me like it could use a shorter stem....


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> ummm if you can nt ride a pump track with out pedaling you seriously are awful at MTBing or your has a set up that will not let you ride anything technical or pumpy well at all.
> 
> That is is why I would love to see a video of you on a pump track, and video of the guy who said the new bronson is crap. If I had to guess you are unable to ride one well.


If you can't pump a trail or ride a pump track with a stem longer than 35 mm, you shouldn't be talking.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Flucod said:


> What is wrong with you guys? Seriously, if you like short stems, great! But I do not and have tried it, so why must you push your crap onto everyone else, sounds alot like being a freakin liberal - where everyone else is wrong but you.


I think you meant conservative. Conservatives try and push their agenda on everybody else. If you aren't Rush Limbaugh, you're wrong, according to him. Hey, at least THIS is worth talking about!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> If you can't pump a trail or ride a pump track with a stem longer than 35 mm, you shouldn't be talking.


90mm stem, "XC" geo






that bike is actually becoming a gravel bike with drops bars....maybe I should take it back to the pump track then.

Just because I do not want to does not mean I can n't.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Now we're reduced to watching someones kid ride a bike, awesome thread, time for this one to die.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

That's your proof?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm just stirring the pot to get it to 40 pages, I'll give it a rest now...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think you meant conservative. Conservatives try and push their agenda on everybody else. If you aren't Rush Limbaugh, you're wrong, according to him. Hey, at least THIS is worth talking about!


This applies to conservatives and liberals, long and short alike.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's your proof?


hey you said if I couldnt ride a pump track on more than a 35mm stem.....

so I had video I showed it, would love to see Flucod.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)




----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Flucod said:


> I don't waste my time taking meaningless videos of nothing, my 11 year old son would rides pump tracks faster and easier then that. Your not married either? Because my wife would divorce if I ever publicly wore that combo of the ugliest bike clothing ever.


I am married.

I could also care less how I look riding. Since when is it about a look? Also the post was about riding a pump track on a bike with more than 35mm stem....so I posted up video on an XC race bike. I am way faster on my Honzo or Dirt Jumper.

Maybe your long stem is just a look thing.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> 90mm stem, "XC" geo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would have been an awesome scene to add to the Napoleon Dynamite movie


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow...this thread is fascinating...I can't believe I have stayed out of it for so long! So I ride an "XC" HT with a 75mm stem and 720mm bar...is that ok? Is the stem too long? Am I not #enduro enough? I need to know before I got try to ride this weekend. If I use an Awesome Strap that change anything?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Since this thread's gone right there - my relationship-status is 'Single, but Taken and Looking'.

Any Bicycling Females with sass -- KL5-####


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Haint said:


> Since this thread's gone right there - my relationship-status is 'Single, but Taken and Looking'.
> 
> Any Bicycling Females with sass -- KL5-####


You'll need to add a video you pump tracking, if you really want this to work.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

mbmb65 said:


> You'll need to add a video you pump tracking, if you really want this to work.


Don't get me started brother - last 'Video' dating led me to Coastal Oswego in the middle of NBC's Al Roker 34 hour uninterrupted Weather Report. You want awkward silence, that's a slam dunk.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Haint said:


> Don't get me started brother - last 'Video' dating led me to Coastal Oswego in the middle of NBC's Al Roker 34 hour uninterrupted Weather Report. You want awkward silence, that's a slam dunk.


Oh God, I've been to Oswego, NY, for 2 months. It wasn't my favorite 2 months.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Oh God, I've been to Oswego, NY, for 2 months. It wasn't my favorite 2 months.


Dude, I was stationed at Fort Drum/Watertown for three and a half years. Going to Afghanistan was a nice vacation.

Worst part of the country, bar none.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Dude, I was stationed at Fort Drum/Watertown for three and a half years. Going to Afghanistan was a nice vacation.
> 
> Worst part of the country, bar none.


Well, I thank you for your service!!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Well, I thank you for your service!!


Let's just say that I preferred to spend time at work as opposed to going home.

Imagine the neighborhood from Fight Club, with the worst weather in the US.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Well, I thank you for your service!!


Lol


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Oswego and I go way back.

Too far back to be honest, much much too far. Some things cannot go unseen.






41 Pages . 
Only the bike's true owner would rather give it away than see it come to harm.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> The short stem zealots would gain a lot of credibility if they didn't say dumb stuff like:
> 
> 1. The best riders in the world ride crappy bikes and only win because they are such great riders.
> 2. The best riders in the world are given bikes by their sponsers which don't fit, and have to compromise their riding positions, but win anyway.
> ...


Awesome post.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think you meant conservative. Conservatives try and push their agenda on everybody else. If you aren't Rush Limbaugh, you're wrong, according to him. Hey, at least THIS is worth talking about!


Ummm no.

Free speech zones
Increased government regulation
Higher taxes
Constant whittling away at the second amendment
Get Obamacare or you will be fined
Now CO2 is classified as a pollutant so you should pay more for energy

I can go on and on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

SDMTB'er said:


> Ummm no.
> 
> Free speech zones
> Increased government regulation
> ...


So true!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Free speech zones? Police have established these for the last 100 years. To protect protestors and counter protestors. 

Before they existed, people like my great grandfather got their jaws broken by company goons wielding axe handles. While attempting to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. 

Let me guess: you support Cliven Bundy's rabble pointing weapons at federal agents (executing a lawful court order), too?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

SDMTB'er said:


> Free speech zones
> Increased government regulation
> Higher taxes
> Constant whittling away at the second amendment
> ...


Free speech as long as it agrees with Conservative views
No acceptance of immigration
Tax breaks for the wealthy, but elimination of middle class
(I pay higher taxes in my Republican-controlled state)
Privatization of public education
Forced acceptance of guns
Forced destruction of the environment

I can go on and on.

Republicans claim small government as long as it benefits them. As soon as they disagree with something (gay rights, abortion, health care, public services) they start controlling everything. F-ing hypocrites.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

We should start a poll to determine if there's a correlation between short stems and political affiliation.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> We should start a poll to determine if there's a correlation between short stems and political affiliation.


That would be interesting! Or political affiliation and reasons for riding.. Although there is likely a correlation there, as well. Possibly suspension travel and political affiliation?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Forced acceptance of guns


That's a funny one!!


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Where do both parties stand on the #enduro lifestyle?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That's a funny one!!


No, you're the funny one!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Free speech as long as it agrees with Conservative views
> No acceptance of immigration
> Tax breaks for the wealthy, but elimination of middle class
> (I pay higher taxes in my Republican-controlled state)
> ...


I know that no one has the right to rule anyone else, and that smaller groups of people should never be ruled by larger group just because there are more of them.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> Where do both parties stand on the #enduro lifestyle?


I'm not really sure how the conservatives feel about it. I'm pretty sure they are ok with it. But the Dems won't allow it. How dare you spend so much money on a bike while there are those out there who can't afford a good bike. And, with our health care system, they done want you doing anything where you might get injured.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm not really sure how the conservatives feel about it. I'm pretty sure they are ok with it. But the Dems won't allow it. How dare you spend so much money on a bike while there are those out there who can't afford a good bike. And, with our health care system, they done want you doing anything where you might get injured.


I'm fairly certain they want to prevent what is already the leading factor in healthcare costs: obesity.

And it's only getting worse as more Americans get fat, and the fat get fatter.

Of course, the red states should worry the most:

Obesity Prevalence Maps 2014 - DNPAO - CDC


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Libertarian here. And like them short.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Free speech as long as it agrees with Conservative views
> 
> Nope. Just ask any black person who is conservative. The are quickly skewered by the tolerant left.
> 
> ...


No, the hypocrites are really on the left. But being a leftist is a pathological condition so it is really not a good use of bandwidth to argue with a libtard.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I know that no one has the right to rule anyone else, and that smaller groups of people should never be ruled by larger group just because there are more of them.


Well guess what? Thanks to libtard policies there are now more people depending on the government than who don't and that isn't slowing down with the purposeful influx of illegal immigrants who are straining the system.

PS: majority rule is called democracy.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

SDMTB'er said:


> Well guess what? Thanks to libtard policies there are now more people depending on the government than who don't


Can you translate this into English?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Free speech zones? Police have established these for the last 100 years. To protect protestors and counter protestors.
> 
> Before they existed, people like my great grandfather got their jaws broken by company goons wielding axe handles. While attempting to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
> 
> Let me guess: you support Cliven Bundy's rabble pointing weapons at federal agents (executing a lawful court order), too?


So because the police do it universities and colleges should too? Have you ever seen a campus map with the tiny 20x20 free speech zone which means you can use actual gender identifiers like his and hers and not have to succumb to the ridiculous PC crap? Libtards will literally shout down invited speakers because they are so intolerant.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)




----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> I'm fairly certain they want to prevent what is already the leading factor in healthcare costs: obesity.
> 
> And it's only getting worse as more Americans get fat, and the fat get fatter.
> 
> ...


No, the Dems like fat obese people. They sit at home all day while we work and pay for their existence. In return they vote to keep the Dems in power. It's the broken bones and head injuries that the Dems try to avoid.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

You crazy yanks know that there is more to politics that your own skewed version of left vs right eh?

I'll stop laughing at your politics the day you elect John Oliver as your president...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I love to discuss/argue politics, but it really comes down to what your personal agenda is. I enjoy the discussion, but it isn't worth the time to do it. You aren't going to change anybody's personal agenda. If you want lower taxes, and the most important thing to you is keeping your money, you're never going to vote Democrat. If you rate eliminating abortion and gay rights as the most important things, then you'll never vote Democrat. If you think everybody on welfare is just lazy and old people really can afford the outrageous costs of medication, then you'll vote Republican. There's nothing anybody can do to change that. Basically, if you're a selfish @sshole, nobody is going to convince you to vote Democrat, and I've accepted that.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> Well guess what? Thanks to libtard policies there are now more people depending on the government than who don't and that isn't slowing down with the purposeful influx of illegal immigrants who are straining the system.
> 
> PS: majority rule is called democracy.


The thing is you are blaming just 'liberals" who are not actually liberals they are actually progressive authoritarians, conservatives are at their best aloof and at their worse religion authoritarian, which makes sense because religion is authoritarian, and its also hogwash.

I am aware what majority rule is. I just layed it out in way that stupid people would not recognize it. I do not believe in Democracy especially FPTP voting system democracy. Who ever gave someone else the right to control my life because I am out numbered?

I am Min-archistist who votes straight libertarian. I would vote for anyone though who want to change representation in the country to MMP.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

David R said:


> You crazy yanks know that there is more to politics that your own skewed version of left vs right eh?
> 
> I'll stop laughing at your politics the day you elect John Oliver as your president...


I do know, thats why I am a min-archist and simply do not play to either side.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I do know, thats why I am a min-archist and simply do not play to either side.


So which Major Party breeds Internet Forum misuse, needing chiseling by centrist-types? Am only curious.

Politics discussion amongst strangers is embarrassing and, often knowledge-base is flawed by lack of experience in true decision making and the influence-of. Not meaning personal territorial-pissings, or infringement of what are lavish excess' - real, actual, compromise. 
Most aches and moans over current Politics can be cured by a Prescription Pad w/ refill(s).
I yield the floor.

Now 42-pages. Can you believe it?
I had to make some minor modifications. Solid tires, reinforced seat post. Heavy-duty shocks. But, baby, this is one sweet ride.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

niether major party is responsible for this thread......if that what you are asking?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> niether major party is responsible for this thread......if that what you are asking?


Nah - just wondering how it is a compiled resource portal on teh interwebz becomes a diaspora of political alphabet soup and what is the IQ needed in order to understand it. 
Not that this thread ever was, or ever can be, considered resource material. Because it's not.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

SDMTB'er said:


> So because the police do it universities and colleges should too? Have you ever seen a campus map with the tiny 20x20 free speech zone which means you can use actual gender identifiers like his and hers and not have to succumb to the ridiculous PC crap? Libtards will literally shout down invited speakers because they are so intolerant.


Lighten up Francis, this isn't 1930s Germany.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Stop the the politics! This isn't even allowed in Off Camber, and it's going to get this shut down. 

Back on track, or at least close to it. Don't make me pull over.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

You guys could be in North Korea where only the army has mountain bikes. At least they have short stems.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Stop the the politics!


Stop it guys, just stop it right now or I'll tell on you! Haha


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Stop the the politics! This isn't even allowed in Off Camber, and it's going to get this shut down.
> 
> Back on track, or at least close to it. Don't make me pull over.


This thread should have been closed about 41 pages ago.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Yikes this thread turned to total **** and fck all you mthr fckers who did it. Opinions are like ass holes, why the fck do you think anyone gives a flying fck about what you think about politics in an MTB forum? The brilliant insight in all your political posts has added up to exactly zero. 

Now, knock this stupid **** off or I'm going to have leave this **** hole, and you will be deprived of my usually insightful and often hilarious commentary. This isn't an idol threat, I'm fcking SEROUS!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Yikes this thread turned to total **** and fck all you mthr fckers who did it. Opinions are like ass holes, why the fck do you think anyone gives a flying fck about what you think about politics in an MTB forum? The brilliant insight in all your political posts has added up to exactly zero.
> 
> Now, knock this stupid **** off or I'm going to have leave this **** hole, and you will be deprived of my usually insightful and often hilarious commentary. This isn't an idol threat, I'm fcking SEROUS!


Yeah, he's, "serous". Knock the **** off or he might **** a brick. OMG, this is funny ****!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Why is it that the only things really worth getting fired up about (politics and religion) are not allowed to be discussed anywhere?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why is it that the only things really worth getting fired up about (politics and religion) are not allowed to be discussed anywhere?


Don't forget sex. Because someone's poor little feelings might get hurt. :cryin:


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why is it that the only things really worth getting fired up about (politics and religion) are not allowed to be discussed anywhere?


there is no god. Its not an opinion its fact.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> there is no god. Its not an opinion its fact.


There's something that made all this madness, I just don't know who or what to blame.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> There's something that made all this madness, I just don't know who or what to blame.


why does there have to be something? Just because we are currently unable to know what set of the big bang(which is scientific fact) or started the first seed of life from organic compounds, does not mean we can make something up just because we do not yet know. Maybe the collective hive mind of all of humanity will never know, but it still does not give us a excuse to make something up to try to explain away what we do not know.

There has never been any proof of a supernatural overlord, and its pointless to disprove something that has never been proven.

God does not exist. That is a fact until proven otherwise, which will never happen.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> why does there have to be something? Just because we are currently unable to know what set of the big bang(which is scientific fact) or started the first seed of life from organic compounds, does not mean we can make something up just because we do not yet know. Maybe the collective hive mind of all of humanity will never know, but it still does not give us a excuse to make something up to try to explain away what we do not know.
> 
> There has never been any proof of a supernatural overlord, and its pointless to disprove something that has never been proven.
> 
> God does not exist. That is a fact until proven otherwise, which will never happen.


Oh, I agree with you. That's why I don't believe in God or religion. But, there's still something out there responsible for everything. I try to live my life as if I may have to meet that entity someday.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Science can't prove anything, which is why there is no unquestionable proof of God, unless you count DNA, the "blueprint of life", mathematics, patterns in nature, or the practical impossibility of life happening into existence proof. Many people do.

Science has not been able to disprove God, either, which should be easy to do if religion is merely a lie. Interesting that with thousands of pages in the Bible to choose from, thousands of years to work with, and new technology can't disprove the existence of God. If science can't, I doubt you two can.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Science can't prove anything...


Wrong! Wear a Gold Chain and cook in a hot Oven. Burn your skin, mess you up!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Haint said:


> Wrong! Wear a Gold Chain and cook in a hot Oven. Burn your skin, mess you up!


Science identifies patterns and attempts to formulate theorems and laws, but can't prove anything with certainty. Can you guarantee that the oven will heat up every single time you turn it on? Can you even prove that you will get burned if it does? It would be a solid assumption, but it is not proven that it will 100% of the time.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You don't know much about science, do you? Science identifies patterns and attempts to formulate theorems and laws, but can't prove anything with certainty.


The Big Yellow one's the Sun.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Haint said:


> The Big Yellow one's the Sun.


You put the appropriate name on an observed object. So what?

I realize you're likely just joking around, and many others are incapable of having a real, open discussion, but I take religion very seriously. I don't have any real answers, but there is nothing more important to get right.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You put the appropriate name on an observed object. So what?
> 
> I realize you're likely just joking around, and many others are incapable of having a real, open discussion, but I take religion very seriously. I don't have any real answers, but there is nothing more important to get right.


Baseball Cap.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

David R said:


> You don't, that's what I was getting at, that it is ridiculous to expect science to "prove" something that by it's very nature is intangible....
> 
> ... like which stem length is best!


Again with these non-quantity stems. SALSA CYCLES decided it would be HILARIOUS to make a tool to measure stems across crazy spans and distance from the steering-center. I took the time to push the 'Shift' key, you know damn well I am a quality-source.

Go after them because it is their tool which has any stem be ordered and clamped onto bikes around the World. Santa and his Elves? Compromised.
Black Friday? A Joke.
After Christmas Sales?? Why, stupid people buying things which don't work.

The Economy is sure to crash overnite now, 43 friggin' pages of Carl Sagan and a Teddy Bear... I think.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gea...uct/review-mondraker-dune-carbon-xr-16-49763/


----------



## cptjack (Jan 14, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Mondraker Dune Carbon XR review - BikeRadar USA


All aforesaid diatribe aside - that is a thirteen thousand dollar bike!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

This dead horse has been beaten long enough, too much political talk in here which is a direct violation of Site rules:

Mtbr Posting Guidelines

I am going to close this down now.

But seriously guys, no political talk, if you want to discuss your political party or your hate for the government, do it someplace else. This is not the place.


----------

