Are 90 mm Stems Really the Devil?
01-06-06, 12:47 AM
#26
Direct Hit Not Required
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Bruno, CA
Posts: 6,193
Bikes: Leopard DC1, Ridley X-Fire, GT Zaskar 9r
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I have 6 bikes all with 90mm -17 degree stems. I must be the pure essence of evil.
I ride 49-51cm frames but all with 51.5-52cm top tubes and saddle to handle bar reach of 52-52.5cm. All my bars are almost the same reach and drop (old 39cm SR Road Champions). This gives me a nice set back saddle position and reach enough to have a good aero position.
I ride 49-51cm frames but all with 51.5-52cm top tubes and saddle to handle bar reach of 52-52.5cm. All my bars are almost the same reach and drop (old 39cm SR Road Champions). This gives me a nice set back saddle position and reach enough to have a good aero position.
01-06-06, 01:17 AM
#27
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,374
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked 646 Times
in
438 Posts
Originally Posted by wagathon
Do you mean a 90-degree stem, i.e., one that has some rise when installed? Stems of old always were about minus 17 degrees or less so that they were flat or even below the riser part of the stem.
A stem that provides some rise probably offends the sensibilities of some traditionalists. They probably equate a flat or downward-sloping stem with an aggressive riding posture.
A 90 mm stem comes standard on bikes with smaller frames, e.g., a '01 catalog shows that a 49 cm Lemond road bike came with a downward-sloping 90-degree stem whereas the same frame in the 59 cm size came with a 120 mm stem.
A stem that provides some rise probably offends the sensibilities of some traditionalists. They probably equate a flat or downward-sloping stem with an aggressive riding posture.
A 90 mm stem comes standard on bikes with smaller frames, e.g., a '01 catalog shows that a 49 cm Lemond road bike came with a downward-sloping 90-degree stem whereas the same frame in the 59 cm size came with a 120 mm stem.
when is a 90 mm stem not a 90 mm stem? when it has anything more than a -17 Deg angle.
not really overstating the obvious...
An old-fashioned quill stem is most always what its marked as; but a 0 deg 90 mm threadless stem is really 86 mm of forward extension.
Most threadless stems are shorter than they 'appear'
In threadless
A + 7 deg 90 mm stem is really 82 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 90 mm stem is less than 74 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 120 mm stem is really 110 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 110 mm stem is really 100 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 120 stem is really only 99.5 mm forward extension
and so on...
the devil is in the details
offending sensibilities of traditionalists? nah. but it does give a chuckle.
instead of having a selection of 3 stems to find the proper extension and bar drop, you now have to have 3 or more different lengths. Then duplicated in 2 or three different angle groups and a trig calculator or old-fashioned trig tables to find the same proper extension and rise. Or you can go with that goofy look of an over-length steerer tube with risers above and below the stem to get to the proper bar drop - very nice asthetically.
Not a wonder that many riders never would bother to try something different than what came on the bike originally.
01-06-06, 06:18 AM
#28
Stop it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Weight Weenie-land.
Posts: 1,607
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Hardrock Pro w/ slicks, flipped stem and HB, 2003 Colnago Dream with full Dura-Ace 7700 double, 2001 Bianchi XL Boron/Daytona, Mavic Open Pro/Campy Centaur/DT Champion built wheels.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My Hardrock has a 90 mm stem.
Did I mention I like to eat babies?
Did I mention I like to eat babies?
01-07-06, 11:14 PM
#29
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
now that's an interesting point. I suppose head tube angle matters too, then.
Originally Posted by cyclezen
zactly!
when is a 90 mm stem not a 90 mm stem? when it has anything more than a -17 Deg angle.
not really overstating the obvious...
An old-fashioned quill stem is most always what its marked as; but a 0 deg 90 mm threadless stem is really 86 mm of forward extension.
Most threadless stems are shorter than they 'appear'
In threadless
A + 7 deg 90 mm stem is really 82 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 90 mm stem is less than 74 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 120 mm stem is really 110 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 110 mm stem is really 100 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 120 stem is really only 99.5 mm forward extension
and so on...
the devil is in the details
offending sensibilities of traditionalists? nah. but it does give a chuckle.
instead of having a selection of 3 stems to find the proper extension and bar drop, you now have to have 3 or more different lengths. Then duplicated in 2 or three different angle groups and a trig calculator or old-fashioned trig tables to find the same proper extension and rise. Or you can go with that goofy look of an over-length steerer tube with risers above and below the stem to get to the proper bar drop - very nice asthetically.
Not a wonder that many riders never would bother to try something different than what came on the bike originally.
when is a 90 mm stem not a 90 mm stem? when it has anything more than a -17 Deg angle.
not really overstating the obvious...
An old-fashioned quill stem is most always what its marked as; but a 0 deg 90 mm threadless stem is really 86 mm of forward extension.
Most threadless stems are shorter than they 'appear'
In threadless
A + 7 deg 90 mm stem is really 82 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 90 mm stem is less than 74 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 120 mm stem is really 110 mm forward extension
A +7 deg 110 mm stem is really 100 mm forward extension
A +17 deg 120 stem is really only 99.5 mm forward extension
and so on...
the devil is in the details
offending sensibilities of traditionalists? nah. but it does give a chuckle.
instead of having a selection of 3 stems to find the proper extension and bar drop, you now have to have 3 or more different lengths. Then duplicated in 2 or three different angle groups and a trig calculator or old-fashioned trig tables to find the same proper extension and rise. Or you can go with that goofy look of an over-length steerer tube with risers above and below the stem to get to the proper bar drop - very nice asthetically.
Not a wonder that many riders never would bother to try something different than what came on the bike originally.
01-08-06, 05:57 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sirshane13
yo, I've heard a lot of people kind of bad-mouth 90 mm road stems. Some people think that you might be fit wrong on the bike if you require one. Anyone else share this sentiment?
Seriously, I went to the source on this...Sheldon Brown and posted his response a while ago. He said the range of normalcy is 80-120mm with virtually no ill effect in this range. Having owned several bikes and experimented, I completely agree. For the population of cyclists like Mr. Brown, myself and others with long legs and shortish torso...a big bike with short stem is typically the ticket to keep saddle to bar drop manageable. I find I like a medium to short stem for handling....but believe it is because that is what I have grown used to. Others prefer a longer stem and I believe many are influenced by racers that ride a small frame with long stem for reach to optimize aerodynamics in replacement of comfort and want to emulate their heros.HTH,
George
