# Correct Stem length - 29er



## ziconater (Jun 19, 2009)

I'm posting here because I know that frame builders probably know best regarding my recent discovery. I have a hard tail 29er that was giving me fits in that it felt twitchy/sketchy, and felt like the front end always wanted to washout. Just bad in every way. It was to the point that I didn't want to ride it at all. Then this last month, I decided to experiment with handlebar length (going to 740mm), which really didn't change much for me at all. Finally, I decided to go from my existing 80mm stem to a longer 90mm, and installed a new 700mm Hussefelt Comp handlebar. The difference was huge, and I can no ride aggressive single track with out upping my life insurance plan.

With that said, how can something as simple as a 10mm stem increase make such a difference in control and stability? Just curious on your thoughts. btw- I ride a Redline D620

Thanks


----------



## TrailMaker (Sep 16, 2007)

Well...


There's a lot of back and forth on this, but my take is that the longer bar and stem slow down the steering motions, and increase your leverage/control over the contact patch. Any difference in rise between the stems? A longer stem of the same rise will lower your torso, and also put a tad more weight on the front tire, offering more grip. Lots of little things can add up, eh?


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

I raised my bars (via more spacers under the stem) 1/4 inch. It was like a totally different bike. I was kinda blown away by this. 

I never considered small changes (under 1/4 inch) to matter. I've been so wrong.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

It's just weight distribution. Get out a couple of bathroom scales and play around, just 10mm can make a big difference in how you're weighting the wheels. 

The length doesn't matter in itself, but your new body position has a dramatic effect.

-Walt


----------



## febikes (Jan 28, 2011)

Stem length is about the position you want you body to be in but also has a big impact on the way a bike rides.

Consider that your position is the five points (butt, feet, hands). The way a bike rides is the two points (front tire, rear tire, and how they move). The position and the way the bike handles has a complex interplay.

Top road riders tend to ride bikes with stems in the range of 100..120mm. XC riders do well with 90...100mm. Trail riders are often on 70..90mm, Downhill riders tend to prefer positions usually are on 50...90mm. There is an interplay of body position with the way the bike handles. As bikes become more "fun" the stems become shorter and the top tubes become longer.

At a simple level we need to think about how much extension we get out of the "reach" from the frame vs. how much from the stem. A short frame paired with a long stem vs. a long frame paired with a short stem. This works back to weight on front wheel vs. weight on rear wheel. Head tube angle and bottom bracket heights also have a big impact.

A lot also relates to the way the rider sits on and interacts with the bike. For geared riding I pretty much agree with the idea of 90mm stems on XC and endurance race bikes. But on single speed I never climb in the saddle. With my single speed when I put out real power I am up and out of the saddle. The out of the saddle position means that the front end of the bike does not lift so I don't need the long stem. With single speed I feel like a shorter stem on a longer bike gives much better control and bike handling across a wider range of conditions without any real downside. 

My single speed bike currently runs a 60mm stem with a frame that is built with 433mm reach. I think my ideal geared bike would be something like 90mm stem and 415mm reach. My geared position would also be a little more "stretched" out because I would expect to be seated more often. My road position would be even more stretched out body position and a longer stem. Currently I only ride single speed some of this is just theory but when I look back on how my position changed over the years this is what I have observed.


----------



## ziconater (Jun 19, 2009)

Wow, lots of information to take in. But I'm essentially getting the gist of it. So basically... I accidentally stumbled upon the correct balance (fore and aft) of me and the bike itself -- hence now I feel in control. I've been an avid road cyclist for the last 15 years, and I've been though a dozen different stems and fittings, but they never had a real steering/control effect on the bike other than providing better comfort and pedal efficiency. I'm guessing that in aggressive MTB riding, balance really trumps everything else.
In reply to 'Trailmaker'-- both stems had an 8 degree rise, but my new handlebars are 20mm risers as opposed to my old handlebars with 40mm.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Just to pile on the anecdotes, on one of my bikes I shortened the 100mm stem by 10mm and on the test ride the bike just *sucked*. Blew every corner. Couldn't figure it out. I thought maybe it was some weird brain feedback - that turning the handlebar put my elbow closer to my body and that was making me understeer. I tried moving the seat back to cancel that out but still couldn't make the bike corner right. Switch back and the bike was fine. I'm going to have to set up a scale and test the weight distribution for both stems now, because it was really uncanny how much of a difference it made.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, to be blunt - road bikes can have the weight distributed like crap and still ride fine. Any competent bike handler can ride any road bike that's within a couple inches of fitting them down a mountain pass pretty much as fast as a bike that's a perfect fit. Mountain bikes are a lot more sensitive to that fit/wheel positioning relationship because you ask a lot more of them on much more variable terrain. 

-Walt


----------



## bobbotron (Nov 28, 2007)

I had a similar experience fitting a mtb - have about 40mm of spacers on the stem. Felt AWFUL to ride - got rid of some spacers, everything was wonderful.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

ziconater said:


> Wow, lots of information to take in. But I'm essentially getting the gist of it. So basically... I accidentally stumbled upon the correct balance (fore and aft) of me and the bike itself -- hence now I feel in control. I've been an avid road cyclist for the last 15 years, and I've been though a dozen different stems and fittings, but they never had a real steering/control effect on the bike other than providing better comfort and pedal efficiency. I'm guessing that in aggressive MTB riding, balance really trumps everything else.
> In reply to 'Trailmaker'-- both stems had an 8 degree rise, but my new handlebars are 20mm risers as opposed to my old handlebars with 40mm.


As Walt stated, it is all about the weight distribution.

For me, the front-center length, and bar to front axle relationship are the critical dimensions for the handling that suits me. TT length, HTA, and stem lengths are just what results after those points are set.

The current fashions in MTB geometry means most (virtually all) production frames will not work for me.


----------



## shirk (Mar 24, 2004)

febikes said:


> Stem length is about the position you want you body to be in but also has a big impact on the way a bike rides.
> 
> Consider that your position is the five points (butt, feet, hands). The way a bike rides is the two points (front tire, rear tire, and how they move). The position and the way the bike handles has a complex interplay.
> 
> ...


I'd say your info on trail and DH is outdated.

Trail bike 50mm to 70mm

DH is 0 to 30mm


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

It's interesting to look at the evolution of front center/HTA/ETT (comparing XC bikes, that is, that are asked to do mostly the same stuff now as they were 30-40 years ago). 

1980s - steep HTA, 130+mm stems and short ETT/front center. Low trail numbers in the 70mm range. 
1990s - a little slackers (71ish) HTA, 100-130mm stems, longer ETT/front center. Trail up by ~10mm or so to average 75-85mm.
2000s - start to see wild variation as 29ers and then 27.5 shake things up, but generally the trend continues. "Normal" XC gets even slacker/longer in front. Trail numbers now in the high 80s for many typical XC bikes.
2010s - 67.5 degrees on an XC bike? Sure, why not! 40mm stems, even longer FC. 100mm trail is not unheard of for "XC" now.

Obviously, nobody is going to be flipping their stems backwards to get even longer front center numbers. But the evolution is interesting. Long FC bikes definitely feel really safe on steeps/drops/flow trails for intermediate riders. I can't stand most of them personally because they take too much effort to weight the front wheel for cornering purposes but most folks aren't cornering at anything near the traction limits of the tires anyway. 

-Walt


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Also bar width has tracked head angle trends. I think the wider bars counteract the extra flop of larger trails (as does taking weight off the front end with a longer FC).


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

My guess is that the positive difference the O.P felt was more due to the 20mm decrease in rise than the 10mm increase in length,although it too probably helped. 
The changes made simply put more weight on the front wheel, hence the iproved traction and less washing out. This has been my own experience as well. 
It seems that because of the short stem/wide bar trend we tend to overlook grip height from the ground,but it turns out it is just as important.


----------



## shirk (Mar 24, 2004)

Walt said:


> Long FC bikes definitely feel really safe on steeps/drops/flow trails for intermediate riders. I can't stand most of them personally because they take too much effort to weight the front wheel for cornering purposes but most folks aren't cornering at anything near the traction limits of the tires anyway.
> 
> -Walt


I'd be curious to see the angle of roll on your bars. I personally run mine angled further forward than most people's bikes I've sat on. A friend rode my bike and commented how it felt like he was able to better weight the front tire without moving his whole body forward. He switched his own bike this week rolling the angle further forward and say's it feels like he's charging harder and riding better. This is on his Ragley Blue Pig so a progressive modern geo bike.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Trust me, I've ridden every possible setup at this point. And I can shred the gnar quite well. Just don't like long FC bikes to do it with. As I said, that's just a personal thing. Everyone has their own happy place when it comes to cockpit setup/weight distribution/favorite color. I set up bars to make my wrists happy, not to adjust my body position. If I need to do that, I'll use stem length/rise.

_Walt


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Walt said:


> It's interesting to look at the evolution of front center/HTA/ETT (comparing XC bikes, that is, that are asked to do mostly the same stuff now as they were 30-40 years ago).
> 
> 1980s - steep HTA, 130+mm stems and short ETT/front center. Low trail numbers in the 70mm range.
> 1990s - a little slackers (71ish) HTA, 100-130mm stems, longer ETT/front center. Trail up by ~10mm or so to average 75-85mm.
> ...


I remember a lot of different geometries in the '80s. Many had slack angles, long wheelbases and short stems.
Salsa pioneered the "NORBA" geometry mid '80s and Bridgestone picked it up in '86 for the MB-1. Still had relatively short stems (well under 100mm).
Some bikes got steeper in the early '90s and that is when the stems got really long.

The irony of the current geometry fashion is the bikes are less agile and responsive than the early 29er that where condemned for being sluggish.


----------



## BungedUP (Aug 18, 2003)

After my RM Slayer was stolen a few years ago, I bought an Intense Tracer 2. It was one of the last companies that still made frames of the type I wanted in North America, and that was important to me. I made the mistake of buying a medium instead of a small - I talked to the salesman at Intense about it, and he was convinced I needed a medium (I'm 5'10"). I was concerned, as the front center lengths had really started to grow on bikes, but bought it anyway. It is a great bike, but man was it uncomfortable for me to ride. After a lot of fiddling around, I've finally got it set up so that I can ride it on a several hour ride without wanting to die, but to me, the geometry trend of the last few years is really unfortunate. I went to go test ride a Pivot at a demo day, and it was even worse. I asked the guys manning the tent about why long top tubes were the current trend, and he didn't have an answer, and seemed to not be remotely interested in talking about it. I can understand that - he probably thought I was one of those obnoxious dudes there just to waste people's time. I really didn't intend for that at all, I just wanted a little info. I think ultimately, it's a fashion trend, like flat bars vs. riser bars. Seems that getting really low is now back in fashion regardless of comfort or general fit. I remember when the long Control Tech stems were the end all for cool, and we'd just about die to get the longest stem possible, regardless of whether it worked well.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I agree with the last 3 contributions. I delight in the handling that in current terms would be somewhere middle ground for FC. I also prefer 26" and 700c in my set-ups and prefer to alter trail for stability. I think that if you become used to one style and feel optimal on the that set-up it becomes your default setting for how you appraise everything else and is determined by that setting. When a new trend comes along, you either adjust to the 'new' normal, or stay with what is for you, the proven 'right' for yourself. Although I am 6'2", I just don't get 29". The sluggish handling doesn't do it for me even though I concede the roll/ride improves. I guess I look for other qualities and am out of step with the 'trend'. In terms of stem length, what ever puts you in the right position should determine what length you use. Just because the bike comes out of the box with X length may not suit you, short arms, longer arms, average, its up to the rider to choose. We know as frame builders how to dial in what is right as hopefully, we have learned how to size people correctly to give that element of service that goes with made to measure frame/bike.

My 2 cents worth...!

Eric


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

On the plus side, you've pretty much skipped 29ers now and everyone is on 75cm front center 27.5 bikes with 45cm chainstays, 85cm bars, and 30mm stems that are even more sluggish! 

-Walt


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Eric Malcolm said:


> I agree with the last 3 contributions. I delight in the handling that in current terms would be somewhere middle ground for FC. I also prefer 26" and 700c in my set-ups and prefer to alter trail for stability. I think that if you become used to one style and feel optimal on the that set-up it becomes your default setting for how you appraise everything else and is determined by that setting. When a new trend comes along, you either adjust to the 'new' normal, or stay with what is for you, the proven 'right' for yourself. Although I am 6'2", I just don't get 29". The sluggish handling doesn't do it for me even though I concede the roll/ride improves. I guess I look for other qualities and am out of step with the 'trend'. In terms of stem length, what ever puts you in the right position should determine what length you use. Just because the bike comes out of the box with X length may not suit you, short arms, longer arms, average, its up to the rider to choose. We know as frame builders how to dial in what is right as hopefully, we have learned how to size people correctly to give that element of service that goes with made to measure frame/bike.
> 
> My 2 cents worth...!
> 
> Eric


If you find 29ers sluggish it is because of the geometry/setup, not the wheel size.
A few years ago in Utah a Canadian bouncy frame builder rode a Turner Sultan and called it a tractor. I sent him out on my self-made rigid 29er (35 pounds, 1300g 2.5 tires) and he came back grinning saying it felt like a 'cross bike.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Walt said:


> On the plus side, you've pretty much skipped 29ers now and everyone is on 75cm front center 27.5 bikes with 45cm chainstays, 85cm bars, and 30mm stems that are even more sluggish!
> 
> OHHHHHH.....Groan!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## bryan_d (Mar 16, 2009)

dr.welby said:


> Just to pile on the anecdotes, on one of my bikes I shortened the 100mm stem by 10mm and on the test ride the bike just *sucked*. Blew every corner. Couldn't figure it out. I thought maybe it was some weird brain feedback - that turning the handlebar put my elbow closer to my body and that was making me understeer. I tried moving the seat back to cancel that out but still couldn't make the bike corner right. Switch back and the bike was fine. I'm going to have to set up a scale and test the weight distribution for both stems now, because it was really uncanny how much of a difference it made.


Get off your seat when you turn! Or at least hover off it. Lean the bike not your self.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

bryan_d said:


> Get off your seat when you turn! Or at least hover off it. Lean the bike not your self.


Come on now, this isn't the beginner's forum.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

I find it interesting that the majority of all you experienced builders favor quicker geometry. I kind of favor the latest trends. For me, I don't mind sacrificing a little agility for stability. I'm a tall/thin rider and its hard to get much front bias when sitting without moving my seat way too far fwd relative to bb.

For me, stem length is more about steering response than weight distribution. I may be brain washed, but I rather hate the added flop with anything longer than 70-80mm.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Do some drawings of where your grips end up at various angles with different length stems (keep the bar width constant). You'll notice it's a matter of 1-2% even for pretty significant stem length differences.

I actually like "modern" geometry in that I like slack/low/short chainstays but I don't like the super long front center that happens if you don't change toptube/stem length to compensate. IMO, you get the best of both worlds - relatively stable on rough/fast stuff, but short wheelbase so you can lean/counter steer and whip around tighter bits.

But that's just me. As I said, everyone is different. I think a lot of people have never ridden a short/medium (old school XC-ish) front center bike with a high trail/slack HT, so they just assume any bike that is slack has to be long, too. And that's true if you get hung up on running stem length X, of course. If you just treat the stem like you treat your seatpost (get the length/configuration you need to fit right after you pick frame geometry) a whole world of new possibilities opens up.

But we're returning to an old topic here, so I'll just post a link to my old blog post:
Waltworks Bicycles: Front Center: It Works, Bitches

-Walt


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Walt said:


> Do some drawings of where your grips end up at various angles with different length stems (keep the bar width constant). You'll notice it's a matter of 1-2% even for pretty significant stem length differences.


Roger that, and I have done that exercise. I know, it doesn't make sense. Probably psychosomatic.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

ktm520 said:


> I find it interesting that the majority of all you experienced builders favor quicker geometry. I kind of favor the latest trends. For me, I don't mind sacrificing a little agility for stability. I'm a tall/thin rider and its hard to get much front bias when sitting without moving my seat way too far fwd relative to bb.
> 
> For me, stem length is more about steering response than weight distribution. I may be brain washed, but I rather hate the added flop with anything longer than 70-80mm.


My bikes have agility AND stability, at high and low speeds, climbing and descending.

The current fashion bikes wander and flop, needing constant correction to stay on track. Not what I consider stable.
Mine hold the line with little input and respond quickly when I want to change direction.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

Thank you for saying this! I was starting to feel like the guy standing alone by the curb with my 72* XC bike while the slack party bus has pulled away.

I've ridden some of the "new" geo slack backs (Nimble 9), and I don't really understand how people can call them agile. Then again, I expect to steer around obstacles, not plow through them. Maybe I'm just old school.



shiggy said:


> The irony of the current geometry fashion is the bikes are less agile and responsive than the early 29er that where condemned for being sluggish.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

seat_boy said:


> Thank you for saying this! I was starting to feel like the guy standing alone by the curb with my 72* XC bike while the slack party bus has pulled away.
> 
> I've ridden some of the "new" geo slack backs (Nimble 9), and I don't really understand how people can call them agile. Then again, I expect to steer around obstacles, not plow through them. Maybe I'm just old school.


For me, a 70 degree HTA is slack.


----------



## BungedUP (Aug 18, 2003)

Ok, just for the record, I want to clarify that there have been 2 distinct geometry movements (I realize that people could probably argue more, but relating to this thread, I'm considering 2). The HTA movement was separate from the long top tubes, at least as I observed it. In the later-mid 2000's, HTA started slackening out a little bit at a time. Trail or "all mountain" bikes were common in the 68 degree range, and even 67 was showing up. As lots of people were throwing on a longer fork, lots of people had 67 and 66 degree bikes too. In the last few years, another trend has been the uber long top tube, although really, we could chalk that up to G. Fischer - I'm not exactly sure how far genesis stuff went as far as top tube lengths. My size L RM Slayer had about a 21.5" (IIRC) top tube length, and effective horizontal length of around 23.5". The size L Norco Empire 5 from 2009 had about the same TT length. But if you look at a L Pivot Mach 6 from today, it's a half inch longer yet. And now looking at a Spec. Stump jumper, their size L is a whopping 24.4"! These bikes all have a roughly 18" ST length, for comparison 
(not that ST length means didly, but at least that is roughly uniform across the board). For a normally proportioned dude such as myself, You couldn't make a stem short enough for me to be able to fit on one of those. Now, clearly, I could just drop to the next size down, but what I'm talking about is roughly comparing the top tube lengths on bikes these days (these are just a few examples) as opposed to a few years back. The slack bandwagon I am solidly on, and was on before the wagon had wheels. The long top tubes just mean that I have less range for which I can adjust my position on the bike, and I'm basically stuck with a super short stem at best. When I am stretched out like that for any length of time, my back starts killing me, lifting the front wheel is much harder, and trying to get away from the saddle just becomes this desperation move. What IS better though, is that the front wheel does end up with more weight on it. So if you can't get enough traction on fast, loose corners, the older bikes would just start sliding the front tire without rotating (which I thought was fun). The newer bikes do put more weight on the front, but they also, well put more weight on the front, which generally I don't like, as it feels much less ergonomic to pick up the front of the bike.

Anyhow, I just wanted to separate myself from the just say no to slack and long. I just say no to long - slack is ok. I don't MIND steeper angles, I just have more FUN when it's slack.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

BungedUP said:


> Ok, just for the record, I want to clarify that there have been 2 distinct geometry movements (I realize that people could probably argue more, but relating to this thread, I'm considering 2). The HTA movement was separate from the long top tubes, at least as I observed it. In the later-mid 2000's, HTA started slackening out a little bit at a time. Trail or "all mountain" bikes were common in the 68 degree range, and even 67 was showing up. As lots of people were throwing on a longer fork, lots of people had 67 and 66 degree bikes too. In the last few years, another trend has been the uber long top tube, although really, we could chalk that up to G. Fischer - I'm not exactly sure how far genesis stuff went as far as top tube lengths. My size L RM Slayer had about a 21.5" (IIRC) top tube length, and effective horizontal length of around 23.5". The size L Norco Empire 5 from 2009 had about the same TT length. But if you look at a L Pivot Mach 6 from today, it's a half inch longer yet. And now looking at a Spec. Stump jumper, their size L is a whopping 24.4"! These bikes all have a roughly 18" ST length, for comparison
> (not that ST length means didly, but at least that is roughly uniform across the board). For a normally proportioned dude such as myself, You couldn't make a stem short enough for me to be able to fit on one of those. Now, clearly, I could just drop to the next size down, but what I'm talking about is roughly comparing the top tube lengths on bikes these days (these are just a few examples) as opposed to a few years back. The slack bandwagon I am solidly on, and was on before the wagon had wheels. The long top tubes just mean that I have less range for which I can adjust my position on the bike, and I'm basically stuck with a super short stem at best. When I am stretched out like that for any length of time, my back starts killing me, lifting the front wheel is much harder, and trying to get away from the saddle just becomes this desperation move. What IS better though, is that the front wheel does end up with more weight on it. So if you can't get enough traction on fast, loose corners, the older bikes would just start sliding the front tire without rotating (which I thought was fun). The newer bikes do put more weight on the front, but they also, well put more weight on the front, which generally I don't like, as it feels much less ergonomic to pick up the front of the bike.
> 
> Anyhow, I just wanted to separate myself from the just say no to slack and long. I just say no to long - slack is ok. I don't MIND steeper angles, I just have more FUN when it's slack.


And for me, it is basically impossible to keep the front center short enough if the HTA is too slack. A stack HTA means the ETT length needs to be extremely short and requires a massively long stem.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Have we lost the definition of 'Balance' with this new Generation of Bike?

I can understand the downhill bikes being slack, they are trending very close to Motocross bikes, and a comparative to the Motored cousins suggests it works, but they do have the power to 'steer' from the rear wheel as well and the speeds are much higher generally. 

Probably, for those of us who are older, we are aware of the combined factors such as stability, maneuverability, physical fit, etc.

It comes down to that personal default setting I feel. I remember the difficulties getting the masses to convert from their 20" townie bikes from the '60-70's to the 10-speed era and trying to get them to accept the fact that they needed to bend forward a little to reach the h/bars - well ya bought a drop bar bike didn't ya? Try getting a MTB'er to bend a bit to ride a CX bike and ride easy single track....

The MTB genre seems to have such a diverse end use and styles within the broad landscape of bikes that is blurring the geo question. Somehow, the rider has to fit in there and control his bike. I just find that in the diversity you see a lot of weird miss fits like a 10yr old kid riding a Fat-bike on the footpath, a full house DH bike commuting in the central city, H/bars so wide you can't pass a rider on single track, nor get it out through your front door of your house without hitting the doorframes, you know what I mean - what is normal...?

I hope the pendulum swings back a little.

Eric


----------



## febikes (Jan 28, 2011)

Eric Malcolm said:


> Have we lost the definition of 'Balance' with this new Generation of Bike?
> ...... nor get it out through your front door of your house without hitting the doorframes, you know what I mean - what is normal...?


Ya, I am all about wide bars these days. I am a convert after removing my bar ends and adjusting my riding style to make use of them. Especially for riding with the rigid fork the extra leverage helps keep the bike under control.

Like I said earlier I am also a fan of riding a longer bike with shorter stem. For me, it is across the board a better bike. Especially on single speed I personally like long frame, short stems, low bars, slack HT and have come to like a slightly lower BB vs. what I road in the past. Bikes evolve and it is good to try different things.

The good thing is that there is a lot of choice in the sport today. Pick or build a frame based on the handling you want then use the stem to get your position. For me this means starting with a long frame that will make the front end light and then putting on a short stem so I can still reach the bars. Others may prefer a shorter frame to put more weight on the front wheel and use a longer stem to get comfortable.

The door frame problem can be solved.....


----------



## jds2835 (May 22, 2011)

I come from a motorcycle enduro and trials background and like to ride off the back of the bike as much as possible. My current ride is a Giant Anthem with a 140 fork and a -1.5* offset headset and 50mm setm. I think dropper posts have a huge influence on how a bike is ridden and help make the angles work on longer slacker bikes. I lower my seat for most corners and end up in a position that can't happen with a fixed post at full height.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Mark

Love the door solution......

The reason behind the OP is indicative of an industry problem in that the masses are purchasing bikes without fully understanding what they are getting themselves into. A vast number do not know the basics of setting up their bikes or purchase the correct fit for them.
As builders/specialists, this will become a ground-hogs day question, equal in terms of: my frame has a crack, what do I do? When we build, we build for an individual or specification, to an end user/purpose, so can control what we set up a bike for, but after that? You only have to look at some of the General threads in the main part of the MTBR to come across endless questions about bike fit, what should I buy/what do you recommend for me, choose between brand X or this Y bike etc, to realise that we exist on another planet and gleefully create this mess.....because we can. Great fun.

Eric


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

As a fellow former enduro person I can't quite understand the "ride off the back of the bike" bit, but I do think this is a great comment because while it *is* almost always possible to stop and drop your saddle, most people didn't actually bother until dropper posts became the norm in the last few years.

Droppers make a HUGE difference for many riders in many ways but probably the biggest is that they let you move your weight around much more freely front-to-back. This means a longer FC can be ok, since it's not hard to get forward and weight the front wheel and then get back to wheelie-drop or manual off a ledge.

Of course, they also make it easier to move back and stay away from the front wheel, meaning you can theoretically make a bike with a much shorter front center without risking the rider overweighting the front on steeps/drops and going OTB.

So I love droppers, not because I actually use one myself most of the time, but because they open up a whole world of geometry possibilities that wouldn't exist for the average rider with a fixed post. You can make a semi-specialist bike that would theoretically suck for some purpose and it's still ok because the dropper gives the rider more ability to adapt. Awesome stuff.

-Walt



jds2835 said:


> I come from a motorcycle enduro and trials background and like to ride off the back of the bike as much as possible. My current ride is a Giant Anthem with a 140 fork and a -1.5* offset headset and 50mm setm. I think dropper posts have a huge influence on how a bike is ridden and help make the angles work on longer slacker bikes. I lower my seat for most corners and end up in a position that can't happen with a fixed post at full height.


----------

