# Long reach, stem?



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

I recall years ago the point of extending the reach was to allow the use of a shorter stem. Well reach #'s seem to have risen quite a bit but minimum stem length has stayed about the [email protected] 35mm. What's the point of longer reach w/ the same size stem's?


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

Stems can’t get any shorter than the diameter of the bar plus some material for clamping. 

Seat tube angles are increasing and head tubes are getting slacker. You need a longer reach (as measured from the BB) to get the same “actual” cockpit distance.

And these are just the physical reasons, outside of customer demand or technique changes to increase performance for these modern geometries.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

There are shorter stems available...but they do have a decent rise to them so that the clamping area can clear the steerer tube. I think BTR has a 10mm or 20mm one. It looks like a fist.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Because of bar sweep stems much shorter than 35mm will start to put your hands behind the steering axis. It depends on bar sweep but if you go too short the steering will start slowing down and maybe feel awkward.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Yes, for a while frame reach numbers increased as did effective top tube lengths. Along with this stem lengths decreased.

Then stems reached a practical minimum (~35mm).

What is happening now as frame reach increases is that seat tube angle is also increasing, thus the effective top tubes are not really increasing. So you don't need a shorter stem.


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

kapusta said:


> Yes, for a while frame reach numbers increased as did effective top tube lengths. Along with this stem lengths decreased.
> 
> Then stems reached a practical minimum (~35mm).
> 
> What is happening now as frame reach increases is that seat tube angle is also increasing, thus the effective top tubes are not really increasing. So you don't need a shorter stem.



The steeper seat angle makes sense but what about descending off the seat? What could be the effect of too much reach when descending?


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> There are shorter stems available...but they do have a decent rise to them so that the clamping area can clear the steerer tube. I think BTR has a 10mm or 20mm one. It looks like a fist.


Years ago I bought an On/ Off Stoic FC stem : Mondraker - OnOff Stoic FG Stem 10mm : Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Outdoors

Was too short for the bike @ the time. Wish I would have held onto the stem instead of throwing it on Ebay.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

keen said:


> The steeper seat angle makes sense but what about descending off the seat? What could be the effect of too much reach when descending?


You get pulled out of position and lose leverage over the bike. When the bike gets too long it can be hard to load the front resulting in poor front tire traction.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

There's a point where long reach bikes get silly for some riders depending on terrain. But if you can sell bikes by telling riders in your marketing copy that your bike is "so long, it's a shred sled, brah," you can sell more bikes.

Reach and stem length are just two variables, though. Don't get too vaught up in them out of context.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

keen said:


> I recall years ago the point of extending the reach was to allow the use of a shorter stem. Well reach #'s seem to have risen quite a bit but minimum stem length has stayed about the [email protected] 35mm. What's the point of longer reach w/ the same size stem's?


Longer bikes with longer wheelbases. i.e. more stable. Along with the aforementioned slacker headtube angles. Also for stability and handling reasons. What’s behind your question?


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> You get pulled out of position and lose leverage over the bike. When the bike gets too long it can be hard to load the front resulting in poor front tire traction.


Like having a super short stem and the front wheel way in front of you. The farther out the front wheel is from my hands...the more weight I need on the front end to keep traction. I got a chance to ride a Pole Evolink. It felt good going downhill...but when it came to actual climbing...it didn't feel all that great. I had to put a lot of my weight forward to keep the front end under control.


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> There's a point where long reach bikes get silly for some riders depending on terrain. But if you can sell bikes by telling riders in your marketing copy that your bike is "so long, it's a shred sled, brah," you can sell more bikes.
> 
> Reach and stem length are just two variables, though. Don't get too vaught up in them out of context.


I am 6’4” and have never ridden a bike that felt too “big”. I have been looking @ frames w/ 500+ reach numbers & long wheel bases. I get the long front center but just wondered when too long is too long and what suffers. I do mostly standing climbs so ascending would not be an issue.


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> Like having a super short stem and the front wheel way in front of you. The farther out the front wheel is from my hands...the more weight I need on the front end to keep traction. I got a chance to ride a Pole Evolink. It felt good going downhill...but when it came to actual climbing...it didn't feel all that great. I had to put a lot of my weight forward to keep the front end under control.


Was considering an XXL Pole but felt it might be too much.


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

keen said:


> I recall years ago the point of extending the reach was to allow the use of a shorter stem. Well reach #'s seem to have risen quite a bit but minimum stem length has stayed about the [email protected] 35mm. What's the point of longer reach w/ the same size stem's?


stem length is for rider position and steering response.


----------



## Gary in VA (May 4, 2004)

Here ya go. Zero length stem


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

Stewiewin said:


> stem length is for rider position and steering response.


I get the steering response with stem length. I would think if the reach is super long you would be stuck with running minimal length stems. I was looking @ local bikes and all the stems were super short - made my 50mm Hope you like a goose neck.


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

Gary in VA said:


> Here ya go. Zero length stem


Reminds me of my Stoic FC on steroids. What I noticed with the Stoic was the lack of leverage w/ such a short stem.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

RS VR6 said:


> Like having a super short stem and the front wheel way in front of you. The farther out the front wheel is from my hands...the more weight I need on the front end to keep traction.


Yes and even if you had a steep HTA and an overly long reach or stem it may increase the static weight on the front wheel but it can be really hard to dynamically weight the front wheel. You can see this with kids who are bikes that are too long for them, they can't move around on the bike much. Basically if your hip angle is too open you can't move around on the bike very much, if your hip angle is too closed then you have to move around on the bike too much.


----------



## looks easy from here (Apr 16, 2019)

Reverse offset, huge rise stem at SOC earlier this month: NSMB.com - The Most Interesting Dude at Sea Otter 2022


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

looks easy from here said:


> Reverse offset, huge rise stem at SOC earlier this month: NSMB.com - The Most Interesting Dude at Sea Otter 2022


That is cool. I have a very negative ape index and I’d love to see how this feels. Love the out of the box design. I bet it’s a beast to climb sitting down.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

keen said:


> I am 6’4” and have never ridden a bike that felt too “big”. I have been looking @ frames w/ 500+ reach numbers & long wheel bases. I get the long front center but just wondered when too long is too long and what suffers. I do mostly standing climbs so ascending would not be an issue.


I'm the same size and have been on xxl bikes with over 500 reach. The fit is great, but the balance of the bike is off because the rear stays are too short. The front end doesn't have enough weight on it. I ended up putting a 60mm stem and slamming the bars but it wasn't enough. The rear needs to grow with the front.


----------

