# Why do older MTB's have such long stems?



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

What has changed in MTB design that for the first 10-20 years no-one in the MTB Industry understood the advantages of a longer stem...now, even XC bikes are designed around 90mm stems. What gives?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Back then...shorter top tubes, longer stems.
Now..longer top tubes, shorter stems.

I don't think overall saddle to handlebar distance has changed all that much.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

older forks had long rakes pushing front axles way ahead of head tubes. thus the long stem was placing your weight in a good spot.
long plush susp. forks otoh are better off without loong levers such as a handlebar hold by a 135/150mm stem. you want your weight way in the back of the bike when using longer than 63mm travel forks.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Different trends on bike handling have become more popular.

Longer stems and shorter top tubes tend to produce quicker handling bikes that are biased toward better climbing.

Shorter stems and longer top tubes create bikes that are more stable and biased towards going downhill.

Both of these generalizations are not always true, but decent guidelines.

The trends change over time. If you prefer a certain type of bike over the other you can pick the TT and stem lengths that make the bike work how you like.


----------



## WorldWind (Oct 31, 2006)

While I do understand your question, I’m not so sure I agree with your basic premise.
That no one in the MTB industry understood the advantages of a long stem. Of course the term ‘longer stem’ is subjective, but then you reference a 90mm stem and the implication is that it is a long stem. 90mm or 3 ½ inches is about half of the length of the reach of a Bull Moose bar. I think the early pioneers of MTN biking (1977) Joe, Gary, Charley and Tom knew very well the leverage advantage as well as the distribution of weight advantages of a small frame with a stretched out cockpit. My Everest (1991) has a 160mm stem.

The thing that has changed, is the frame technology that has allowed manufactures to achieve the strength that the pioneers of mountain geometry so longed for. The other thing that has changed is the rider. Riders now days seek much more aggressive venues in which to ride. The big hits heroically absorbed by the infant fork technology was sending massive shear energy into the stems designed to work with rigid forks so angles, lengths and grams had to change. With a stem shorter is stronger.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

In the early days of mountain biking the sport was on the fringe and its adherents felt a profound sense of insecurity in particular vis-a-vis the brute masculinity of road riders. In response to this sense of perceived inadequacy the proportions of the bicycle's stem (read phallus) was elongated to hyper-compensate. However, as the sport became established this need fell away and thus the stems shrank.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2008)

bushpig said:


> In the early days of mountain biking the sport was on the fringe and its adherents felt a profound sense of insecurity in particular vis-a-vis the brute masculinity of road riders. In response to this sense of perceived inadequacy the proportions of the bicycle's stem (read phallus) was elongated to hyper-compensate. However, as the sport became established this need fell away and thus the stems shrank.


what's all this penis talk lately? first crconsulting told us (and at least i did not want to know such intimate details) that he has shown CC his LD and now you too...



Carsten


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

Carsten said:


> what's all this penis talk lately? first crconsulting told us (and at least i did not want to know such intimate details) that he has shown CC his LD and now you too...
> 
> 
> 
> Carsten


eyyyyyyy


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*oh, I know the answer*

It is of my opinion that most early mountain bike design aspirations came from xc racing on big single loop courses that could be 28 or more miles. To win a race like this you need to win in the climbs. If racing is the sport, and racing was over real mountains, than a long low stem with long bar ends too was the winning ticket. All that was needed downhill was not to crash or flat.

Mountain bikes intended use has changed. Racing is done on short circuts, which is fast and fun, so a quick handling bike is better. Plus, riders are hammering things that were once thought impossible. Short stems are great for jumping and drops, and bracing for disk brake forces.

Personaly I like the attributes of long stems. I also like the kind of riding that they cater to. Adventures instead of assault of the local trails.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> In the early days of mountain biking the sport was on the fringe and its adherents felt a profound sense of insecurity in particular vis-a-vis the brute masculinity of road riders. In response to this sense of perceived inadequacy the proportions of the bicycle's stem (read phallus) was elongated to hyper-compensate. However, as the sport became established this need fell away and thus the stems shrank.


let me see if i got it: back in the day men had longer pennis?


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Back then...shorter top tubes, longer stems.
> Now..longer top tubes, shorter stems.
> 
> I don't think overall saddle to handlebar distance has changed all that much.


I agree to a point. What has changed is the seat tube angles. They used to be a lot more slack on road and MTBs. Personally, I prefer the old school slack seat tube angles.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

CS2 said:


> I agree to a point. What has changed is the seat tube angles. They used to be a lot more slack on road and MTBs. Personally, I prefer the old school slack seat tube angles.


I think that the days of the super-long stems (late 1980s and early 1990s) also corresponded to steeep seat tube angles. Bontragers and Ritcheys come to mind with 150mm stems and 74 degrees STAs.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

everyone's got their own ideas. I think I like Laffeaux's the best.

It has nothing to do with seat angles. Doesnt make any sense, if the STA was more laid back, adding a longer stem would only exacerbate that. i dont look at geometry really any more, but I bet a lot of the modern trail bikes have slacker seat angles than some of the mid 80s bikes (Yetis not included).

My take is that I think that weight distribution is just changing for the average rider. The early bikes had a lot of weight bias up front. I think it hurt us on the descents but we didnt really know any better. Or at least I never thought of it back then. We just rode what we had and made it work. I remember when riser bars started to come into play and then the whole thing started to go up and back... and it really helped on the descents and maybe just hurt us a little on the steep climbs. Better trade off for all around riding I think...

Just my opinion. Also, a lot of the older bars had lots of sweep negating some of that.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm supposed to use a short stem today? Dang, there I go doin' it wrong again. 

I think it's because back then it was a roadie influence - stretched out and low. Nowadays folks are lazy and like to sit up like they're riding a couch.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ssmike said:


> I'm supposed to use a short stem today? Dang, there I go doin' it wrong again.


7' 6" people need not comment. 

edit: hey, what about your Fredstem on your road bike??


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

*Is no one going to mention Genesis?*

You know, when Gary Fisher 'singlehandedly' revolutionised mountain bike geometry.

Personally I think a good rule as far as stems is: Full-suspension bikes or bikes with a fork with more than 80mm of travel should not have a stem longer than 120mm centre to centre. Rigid or hardtail bikes should not have a stem less than 110mm centre to centre.

It's all about aesthetics don't you know.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> You know, when Gary Fisher 'singlehandedly' revolutionised mountain bike geometry.
> 
> Personally I think a good rule as far as stems is: Full-suspension bikes or bikes with a fork with more than 80mm of travel should not have a stem longer than 120mm centre to centre. Rigid or hardtail bikes should not have a stem less than 110mm centre to centre.
> 
> ...


Haha! Right! 

And yes, function should always follow form.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

ssmike said:


> I'm supposed to use a short stem today?


Drop bar stems have short reach. Run your risers upside down with them.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

This concept may be buried within others comments, but this has always been how I sum it up to someone asking about it at that shop. To those who've ridden a "recreational" level modern MTB. You know, the 3 to 400 dollar flavor. You'll find a shorter TT to get you more upright, (read: comfortable for neophyte riders) position. This is great for light trail riding. A more expensive "performance" level bike gets a longer TT. Ride a cheapy on anything steep, and you'll quickly find that a short TT gives little room to move your center of gravity around, whereas, a longer TT give you some room to groove, and find the right spot between the wheels for the situation at hand. Simply said, longer TT's give more room for "englishing" the bike throughout the rides ups and downs. That's my spin anyway


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*you guys are stuck in the past*

long stems, long top tubes, seats way above the bars, we rode this way once because it was all we had. you guys should all pool your money and buy a time machine.

New bikes are superior. I now ride a shorter stem and top tube than I did in 1990. I think I am still the same height. New bikes put your weight back farther. 5 inches of travel with pedal control front and rear changes things. your bikes geometry is constantly changing with compression. Also, riser bars offer soo much leverage that a shorter stem seems to climb well.

I think that there are very little actual merrits, now that I think about it, to long stems. But I do like the way it looks. It is a good way to put all your weight on the front tire and crash. hmmmm, why don't I ever crash any more on new bikes?


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

klein nerd said:


> long stems, long top tubes, seats way above the bars, we rode this way once because it was all we had. you guys should all pool your money and buy a time machine.


Isn't that what this forum is, a time machine?

I really don't think it was all we had. Compare any Ritchey to an IRD Stroker from the late 80s for example and you will see definite differences in the geometry and stem selection. Different builders had different ideas. Different racers had different preferences and we as consumers followed our favorites like lemmings.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Isn't that what this forum is, a time machine?
> 
> I really don't think it was all we had. Compare any Ritchey to an IRD Stroker from the late 80s for example and you will see definite differences in the geometry and stem selection. Different builders had different ideas. Different racers had different preferences and we as consumers followed our favorites like lemmings.


The IRD was rare in numbers and a rare exception.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> The IRD was rare in numbers and a rare exception.


that is true - not many other bikes had 24 inch top tubes and 16 inch chainstays!

That said, there was a lot of diversity in frame design and geometry. Riding in Canada the standard was radical sloping top tube with long, flat or negative stem. While not the best for really technical stuff this is a great set up for hammering. You engage more power in your pedal strokes and are able to climb without popping the front wheel up.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> The IRD was rare in numbers and a rare exception.


Yeah, I know. I was merely pointing out that there wasn't one generic opinion on frame geometry. Think EWR and Grove and what the Canadian builders were doing.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

bushpig said:


> that is true - not many other bikes had 24 inch top tubes and 16 inch chainstays!


...and 15" BB heights, and 225mm cranks. 



bushpig said:


> That said, there was a lot of diversity in frame design and geometry. Riding in Canada the standard was radical sloping top tube with long, flat or negative stem. While not the best for really technical stuff this is a great set up for hammering. You engage more power in your pedal strokes and are able to climb without popping the front wheel up.


Sloping tt doesnt really change ride characteristics (ie weight dist, position, steering) and we all had the long, low stems down here south o' the border too.  We just made it work. And I do agree, it is a position that gives you more power and better climbing... Im happy to give that up though for good weight distribution for aggressive descending.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

fat chances, both Yo and wicked are hallmarks of good handling when going down steep stuff.
both bikes were designed w/ 135mm stems as proper set up. it's their 72º seat angle that would push your weight back and give balance, control when going down steep chutes. plus good power when climbing.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> fat chances, both Yo and wicked are hallmarks of good handling when going down steep stuff.
> both bikes were designed w/ 135mm stems as proper set up. it's their 72º seat angle that would push your weight back and give balance, control when going down steep chutes. plus good power when climbing.


They were designed around 135 stems? Never heard that.

I like the 72 STA too, but the high(er) bb is not something you'd ask for for bombing steep stuff...

If all Im doing is climbing, I'll take the supah steep and short Bonty.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

PaintPeelinPbody said:


> What has changed in MTB design that for the first 10-20 years no-one in the MTB Industry understood the advantages of a longer stem...now, even XC bikes are designed around 90mm stems. What gives?


A couple of people kind of hit it on the head.
Early MTB's were primarily designed for fire roads. As more and more builders in the early days came on line. The bike designs started to change they became suited for the area in which they (the builders) were riding. Remember these guys all built bikes for themselves and their friends primarily. Therefore the characteristics were suited for the area's which they rode. You saw very different designs from west coast to east coast, early days were primarily fire roads therefore you saw lower BB's, flat TT as clearance wasn't as much of an issue. Also the head angles were more relaxed for those long sweeping high speed fire road trails. I remember east coast bikes start having higher BB's and as more people started pushing the trail envelope as far as what you could ride the sloping top tubes, As the north shore crown came on line the designs started changing again, suspension, sloping top tubes for crotch clearance and high bottom brackets. Nobody who rode a clunker or early mtb could have believed some of the riding going on today. The Canadians really pushed the envelope as far as what can be ridden. I have to hand it to them, Looking at bikes today you have many more choices as far as geometry etc than previously available. It's all good, pick a bike for the type of trails in your area or what you want and buy it.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Also, if you think of it, older frames were cerated out of what materials they had in the day. With steel frames, it was difficult to create a stiff framewith long tubing, therefore, a longer stem was sued in combination with shorter tubes in the frame to create as rigid a frame as possible, and a bike that would not handle adversely at speed or wobble under taller riders.

Now, with aluminum and carbon frames at the head of the production pack, tube lengths are not as limitted, as a stiff frame can be built with just about any length tubing Taiwan and China can produce, therefore, there is no need to create any extra length via the stem.

Many custom frame builders (and decent designers) will create taller frames (62+ cm on road bike, for instance) with a maximum of about 61cm of top tube length for any tall rider and compensate for the rest of the length with a longer stem to ensure the frame is stiff enough under the inevitable girth of the rider and to help avoid any death wobble issues at speed.

I believe ssmike could shed some more light on this concept, as I noticed many of his creations in the past have been VERY well suited to taller riders...which may have something to do with his height and personal experience.

All of this road argument translates directly to mountain bikes.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

crconsulting said:


> A couple of people kind of hit it on the head.
> Early MTB's were primarily designed for fire roads. As more and more builders in the early days came on line. The bike designs started to change they became suited for the area in which they (the builders) were riding. Remember these guys all built bikes for themselves and their friends primarily. Therefore the characteristics were suited for the area's which they rode. You saw very different designs from west coast to east coast, early days were primarily fire roads therefore you saw lower BB's, flat TT as clearance wasn't as much of an issue. Also the head angles were more relaxed for those long sweeping high speed fire road trails. I remember east coast bikes start having higher BB's and as more people started pushing the trail envelope as far as what you could ride the sloping top tubes, As the north shore crown came on line the designs started changing again, suspension, sloping top tubes for crotch clearance and high bottom brackets. Nobody who rode a clunker or early mtb could have believed some of the riding going on today. The Canadians really pushed the envelope as far as what can be ridden. I have to hand it to them, Looking at bikes today you have many more choices as far as geometry etc than previously available. It's all good, pick a bike for the type of trails in your area or what you want and buy it.


well said. I do think though that the longer stems, for the most part, started in the late 80s. Some of the early and mid80s stuff ran a pretty short stem. Riding got more aggressive and so did the weight distribution (ie shorter stems, higher bars).


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> well said. I do think though that the longer stems, for the most part, started in the late 80s. Some of the early and mid80s stuff ran a pretty short stem. Riding got more aggressive and so did the weight distribution (ie shorter stems, higher bars).


yep, look at my C'ham. something else people rarely talk about that has impacted handling dramatically

fork rakes......


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

richieb said:


> Also, if you think of it, older frames were cerated out of what materials they had in the day. With steel frames, it was difficult to create a stiff framewith long tubing, therefore, a longer stem was sued in combination with shorter tubes in the frame to create as rigid a frame as possible, and a bike that would not handle adversely at speed or wobble under taller riders.
> 
> Now, with aluminum and carbon frames at the head of the production pack, tube lengths are not as limitted, as a stiff frame can be built with just about any length tubing Taiwan and China can produce, therefore, there is no need to create any extra length via the stem.
> 
> ...


I do agree that taller frames are more noodly, but I dont think that was why the geo was the way it was.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> They were designed around 135 stems? Never heard that.
> 
> I like the 72 STA too, but the high(er) bb is not something you'd ask for for bombing steep stuff...
> 
> If all Im doing is climbing, I'll take the supah steep and short Bonty.


they were usually built w/ 135mm stems. 
the wicked is a short top tube bike. it's 18in has a 22.25 top tube. i ride it w/ 135 and there is no endo feeling.
bontragers and ritcheys w/ 74º and short top tubes are catapults.

the BB on the wicked is a bit less than 12in. anything lower is unridable in woods. i bet the yo has the same BB.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

richieb said:


> Also, if you think of it, older frames were cerated out of what materials they had in the day. With steel frames, it was difficult to create a stiff framewith long tubing, .
> .


enter the yo eddy.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

crconsulting said:


> yep,  look at my C'ham. something else people rarely talk about that has impacted handling dramatically
> 
> fork rakes......


fork rakes were long. then yetis, yo eddys and bontragers had shorter rakes. suddenly it became fashionable to have a short rake: paramounts, gt..


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> well said. I do think though that the longer stems, for the most part, started in the late 80s. Some of the early and mid80s stuff ran a pretty short stem. Riding got more aggressive and so did the weight distribution (ie shorter stems, higher bars).


first mtbs had short stems, short top tubes and long cstays. then long stems on slightly longer top tubes. then short rake forks came on and longer top tubes that somewhat compensate the shorter front center. then slopping top tubes and even longer top tubes plus very short chainstays, first kleins and then genesis.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> fork rakes were long. then yetis, yo eddys and bontragers had shorter rakes. suddenly it became fashionable to have a short rake: paramounts, gt..


The Yetis had short rake (1.25") back in '84..


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

richieb said:


> Also, if you think of it, older frames were cerated out of what materials they had in the day. With steel frames, it was difficult to create a stiff framewith long tubing, therefore, a longer stem was sued in combination with shorter tubes in the frame to create as rigid a frame as possible, and a bike that would not handle adversely at speed or wobble under taller riders.
> 
> Now, with aluminum and carbon frames at the head of the production pack, tube lengths are not as limitted, as a stiff frame can be built with just about any length tubing Taiwan and China can produce, therefore, there is no need to create any extra length via the stem.
> 
> ...


That's a very good synopsis, RB. Builders were limited by tube choices and especially tube lengths. With road bikes at the time being pretty short by today's standards, mountain bike frames also ended up "short" in the waist. If you look at old road bikes between 60cm and even 64cm sizes, they all had virtually the same length top tube - something in the 58-59cm range. You would just fit up a long stem and call it done.

And yes, the largest size of every bike I created was always a virtual custom bike for me


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> anything lower is unridable in woods.


maybe thats why west coast guys are good at bunnyhopping.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> well said. I do think though that the longer stems, for the most part, started in the late 80s. Some of the early and mid80s stuff ran a pretty short stem. Riding got more aggressive and so did the weight distribution (ie shorter stems, higher bars).


I think also long stem was made popular by the bullmoose bar early on.
I think that Tom Ritchey was instrumental in its popularity. The reason being he was a tall guy and he probably needed a stem he could "fit into". All the bull moose bars I ever saw were pretty close to 150mm


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

PaintPeelinPbody said:


> What has changed in MTB design that for the first 10-20 years no-one in the MTB Industry understood the advantages of a longer stem...now, even XC bikes are designed around 90mm stems. What gives?


I don't think it's that the industry doesn't understand the advantages of an old-school bike setup, but rather they don't see a market for it. The market has changed over the years to put more emphasis on downhill performance and more aggressive riding (jumps, drops), and it just so happens that the cockpit setup for these types of bikes also end up feeling more comfy to the noobs, so it's a win-win for them to make bikes this way. So even though they're still making XC bikes, people's expectations of XC bikes have changed.

I personally have mtn bikes with stems ranging from 50mm to 150mm and I like 'em all. The new setups have me riding stuff that was way too scary on my older bikes. BUT, I feel sorry for newer riders that may never get the opportunity to experience how fast you feel when you're rocketing through some flowy singletrack stretched out on a lightweight rigid or low-travel hardtail with a long low stem and a narrow flat bar (or drops).


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*I have arthritis in my neck*

years and years of o rise stems and way high seat posts left my neck creaking like a bottom bracket on an old cannondale after ten river crossings. What is climbing performance realy worth? In fact if I ride an old school set up too hard, I get a head ache all the next day. But thats what beers for.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

klein nerd said:


> years and years of o rise stems and way high seat posts left my neck creaking like a bottom bracket on an old cannondale after ten river crossings. What is climbing performance realy worth? In fact if I ride an old school set up too hard, I get a head ache all the next day. But thats what beers for.


that's not a geometry trouble... it's old age creeping in.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

one other thing....most bars made in the heyday of the long stems had AT LEAST a 7 degree back-sweep...some up to 15", which effectively shortened the stem by up to 2 inches at the end of the bars.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

richieb said:


> one other thing....most bars made in the heyday of the long stems had AT LEAST a 7 degree back-sweep...some up to 15", which effectively shortened the stem by up to 2 inches at the end of the bars.


yep. see the end of post #13. 

I have a set of old bullmoose and by the time you get out to the end of the 28" wide bars it ends up effectively being a ~10mm stem. Combine those wide bars with 2.5" of fork offset and a 68 degree headangle and it takes a lot of steering input to go down a singletrack. No wonder everybody was cutting down their bars to 19".


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*when did the short stem take over?*

I remember building up a bike for jumping in 1998. I wanted the shortest stem I could find in town that afternoon, santa cruz, and the shortest any shop had on hand was like 120mm. I thought that was short enough, and with riser bars was considered rather an extreme set up. When did the sub 100mm stem become the norm. I still like 110 mm on modern bikes. But I am tall.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> they were usually built w/ 135mm stems.
> the wicked is a short top tube bike. it's 18in has a 22.25 top tube. i ride it w/ 135 and there is no endo feeling.
> bontragers and ritcheys w/ 74º and short top tubes are catapults.
> 
> the BB on the wicked is a bit less than 12in. anything lower is unridable in woods. i bet the yo has the same BB.


Thats exactly what I had. 18" Wicked, 22.25 TT, 135 stem. The worst part of that bike was the endo feeling. Poor descender IMO. It was a quick bike though. Naturally light and a good climber...but no so good at high speed. Ultimately it did not fit my riding style and my trails...so I sold it.

Probably excellent for super tight twisty single track where speeds stay low and you need sharp bursts of energy.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Thats exactly what I had. 18" Wicked, 22.25 TT, 135 stem. The worst part of that bike was the endo feeling. Poor descender IMO. It was a quick bike though. Naturally light and a good climber...but no so good at high speed. Ultimately it did not fit my riding style and my trails...so I sold it.
> 
> Probably excellent for super tight twisty single track where speeds stay low and you need sharp bursts of energy.


you had a 19.5 in wicked and you are the only ever owner of a wicked saying it was a poor descender.
it's NOT a fireroader.. it's a slow speed tight technical rocky singletrack bike.
it climbs well but it descends technical stuff like magic. and i compare it w/ an ibis mojo.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> you had a 19.5 in wicked and you are the only ever owner of a wicked saying it was a poor descender.
> it's NOT a fireroader.. it's a slow speed tight technical rocky singletrack bike.
> it climbs well but it descends technical stuff like magic. and i compare it w/ an ibis mojo.


Sorry...19.5". I'm sure the 18" would have been a different animal.

I think we're saying the same thing though...bad on fast fire roads, good on slow tech.

I have not ridden an Ibis to compare it to, but I like my Ritchey better and possibly the Salsa more than the Ritchey.

This is why we all need so many bikes. To compare the finer details!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> This is why we all need so many bikes. To compare the finer details!


exactly... true connoisseurs.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> exactly... true connoisseurs.


 Agreed!


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

The reason I brought this up was because I started out riding short TT long stem bikes as a kid in the late 90's, but because I was a kid, I could ride a shorter stem, so I never really noticed the lack of ability with a shorter TT. 

I recently started riding a bike very similar to what I rode a kid. When I was 15 I had a GT Pantera, RS Judy, 100mm Stem. Now I have a 18" 1995 Zaskar, a bike that many say is one of the best XC bikes of the 90's, and it feels like junk on anything that isn't flat! I've tried swapping out the 135mm stem for a 90mm, and that just makes it feel weirder. 

My father recently passed away, and I have owned his 1990 Team Marin for quite a few years, but only recently I wanted to Retro-Mod the bike (many parts on it broke over the years). 

My main concern is i'll never be comfortable riding the Marin because of the long-stem-short-tt conundrum.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Compare the rest of the geometry between the two bikes. IIRC the GT has a steep seat angle combined with that shortish top tube. I don't know what the Marin's geo is but it may wind up being a bike you are more comfortable on.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

PaintPeelinPbody said:


> The reason I brought this up was because I started out riding short TT long stem bikes as a kid in the late 90's, but because I was a kid, I could ride a shorter stem, so I never really noticed the lack of ability with a shorter TT.
> 
> I recently started riding a bike very similar to what I rode a kid. When I was 15 I had a GT Pantera, RS Judy, 100mm Stem. Now I have a 18" 1995 Zaskar, a bike that many say is one of the best XC bikes of the 90's, and it feels like junk on anything that isn't flat! I've tried swapping out the 135mm stem for a 90mm, and that just makes it feel weirder.
> 
> ...


There's no doubt that modern bikes are more confidence-inspiring on the trails, but the older setups had certain advantages and you need to embrace the advantages and not focus so much on the shortcomings. If you're only going to own one bike, you'll probably be better off with something more modern. But if you have a modern bike and want to experience your trails in a different way, a classic 90s XC hardtail will give you that.

I do want to throw my 2 cents in on this short TT assumption though. I own 3 mid 90s XC bikes (2 hardtails and one rigid) and the Effective TT lengths on those are very similar to my new XC rides (one FS and one hardtail). The biggest difference is the height of the front end due to longer travel forks. Then you add to that a short stem and wide riser bars that come stock with most modern bikes, the feel is very different from the older bikes. They feel great pointed downhill or going over a log pile, but in the gentler sections of trail they feel very slow (like riding a comfort bike).


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

trailville said:


> I do want to [throw] my 2 cents in on this short TT assumption though. I own 3 mid 90s XC bikes (2 hardtails and one rigid) and the Effective TT lengths on those are very similar to my new XC rides (one FS and one hardtail).


That's a good point. I was surprised to see just that recently on the Ibis I picked up. Actual toptube is 22.75" but the effective is actually closer to 23.25". Granted it has an 80mm fork on it instead of a 63mm fork, but the difference I don't think would be that great.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

Well thanks for the grammar correction. I'd hate to have that hanging over my head (in the internet archives) for eternity. Ok, so I can edit the existing post, but how do I fix all those email notifications that went out? Oh I'm so screwed.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

trailville said:


> Well thanks for the grammar correction. I'd hate to have that hanging over my head (in the internet archives) for eternity. Ok, so I can edit the existing post, but how do I fix all those email notifications that went out? Oh I'm so screwed.


No prob. People grind on me enough about typos and making gross generalizations, I figured I would pass it along. 

And if the edit actually did chap your a$$ I apologize.


----------



## pindowngirl25 (Sep 19, 2006)

Tom's got lots of rake and short top tube, he knows what he is doing.... I have a ritchey ni-ti, it just works.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

_
_
_


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Stems got shorter with the advent of suspension forks and then got shorter still as travel got greater and greater. The main reason is that long-travel brought about a change in the type of riding most people do, towards tight, technical stuff in the woods, and away from long-distance cross-country trekking. Few mountain bikes ever go anywhere near a mountain any more. Obviously a long low set up is great for long-distance trekking but problematic in the woods.

The conundrum though is that you’d think that retrobikers on their noble rigid/short-travel survivors with period-correct stems etc would use them for retro-style long-distance rides, but at least over here in the UK even retrobikers tend to head for the woods and do modern-style riding. So if it wasn’t for a commitment to period-correctness, short stems would make more sense.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

*Tom Ritchey*

As Pindowngirl says, TR certainly knows what he's doing, but I have to say that bike looks way too small for him to me. OK, he's climbing in this photo, but that looks like a very weak pedalling posture to ignorant old me.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

There is pretty clearly some distortion in that photo, but yeah the bike looks small for him.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*better up hill*

long stems slow the steering down, ie more rider input for turning the bike, thus making the bike track better up hill.

I think the trend is toward short stems because uphill is not viewed as part of the sport as much. Bikes are designed to be enjoyed downhill on techinical terrain.

I don't think that new bikes climb poorly they just have a light front end, but of course now we have adjustable suspension on the fly so one can compensate with head angle. But for racing up hill a slow steering bike will alow the rider to pay less attention to where they are going and just put the hammer down.

So, long stems for epic death march races, and short stems for fun. Sounds good to me. That bike is not too small, look how tall the head tube is, it's just a fish eye lense.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I thought the long stem on a consumer bike*

simply mimicked the aggro racing position. The racing position was really forward and down, committing weight and power much more radically than average riders could manage. A good and well trained rider can make anything handle and they don't worry about going OTB. They were more concerned about power delivery.
I think that manufacturers finally figured out that average people couldn't ride these bikes and that they were just dying in garages. Road bike manufacturers learned, in like fashion, that a more accommodating geometry was needed to get average people on road bikes, too. Enter the triple crank and the wider ranging cogsets.
So mtb designers raised the bars, and shortened the stems to make people more comfortable. This dovetails with the recreational rider being able to ride downhill as Dual Suspension developed. The rider could just side back in the sled, let the bike do the work, and not have to worry about going OTB or "picking lines.". It was no longer such a matter of skill.
Just look at how different an old school rider's seat height/bar height is from a modern rider. Just look at how much more elaborate an old school HT rider is at picking lines. That is not to say that this was a perfect time or that there is anything absolute or pure about this. I simply use it as a frame of reference.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

On a recent group ride on very rooty trails (where I was the only person riding retro) it finally dawned on me why I take such a beating these days.

It's not the bike or it's long stem or it's geometry. It's the fact that my 34 year old self seems to think that I can just sit down and pedal along with the crowd. When in reality my 22 year old self built the bike for aggressive out of or behind the saddle cross country racing. 
Either I will get back in racing condition or I will buy myself a rolling couch. Time will tell.


----------

