Are 90 mm Stems Really the Devil?
 

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?

ROFL, the devil! good one.

i use one and i don't think i'm going to hell. i had a 70mm on my old bike :eek:

typically 110 appear to be the sweet spot for stem sizing... but who knows. If the frame doesn't feel to big then its probably ok. if however your seapost only has 1" showing and your standover in non-existant then the frame is too big.

Some peoples have no choice: long legs, short torso.

so is the stem size maxim the handlebar-disappearing hub rule? that is, when you look down, the hub should disappear behind the handlebar as one general rule of fit.

Generally, yes, but you should schedule a fitting session at the LBS where they can experiment with different stem sizes to analyze your position while you ride with your bike attached to a trainer.

I asked the guy that fit me about that last year. He said that would "rougly" get you in the right spot. After I was fitted and my palms on the brake hoods the skewer was pretty much hidden.

It really is going to depend on your flexibility as well. That was taken into consideration as well during my fit and that did determin that since Im flexible I could use a longer stem.

-jim

If 90mm is so bad, why do they readily use 60-70mm stems on MTB's?

when i went to get my first bike fit (at a serrota certified fit guy's shop) he told me that was an "old wives tale"....

you know, I guess I've always heard that fit on a road bike is a lot more specific and finicky than that of an mtb.

oh yeah, and the hand position on the hb probably makes a difference too ... different geometries also must contribute.

Whoa, yeah! I’d better respond to this one. But let me also start out with the standard disclosure. What feels best is best and everyone is proportionally different. So you should listen to your senses more than other’s mouths.

I recently went through a fit ordeal with a new bike. I bought a 54cm and began, after a few miles, to feel too stretched out over the top bar (have a shorter than average torso). I determined that because my knee-over-pedal relationship (KOPS) was good and that my saddle was as forward as it could go, that the next step was to go with a different stem. I took it back to the LBS and they switched the 100mm to a 90mm. After more miles in the saddle I then felt that my steering felt too twitchy, especially at about 35mph, and much more so when pedaling above 35.

Assuming that this new problem was based off of the new stem, I queried the forum here about the possibility of ebaying the bike and buying a 52cm. …Seems about 75% of the responses were, “no, there is a way to make your bike fit” or “you’ll just be trading one problem for another, don’t do it”. All of the feedback was however, very helpful in helping me to understand my problem thoroughly.

Ultimately my new thorough understanding of the situation lead me to the choice of ebaying and buying again. RIGHT CHOICE!!! My new 52cm feels great and has me all the more addicted! The 110 definitely hits the sweet spot for me. Where the old stem was twitchy and overly responsive, the new one is rock steady and gives me more control freedom. In fact, I hit 40 2 days ago while pedaling like a madman and had no problems with stability or steering. I’m sure some will argue that I’m just getting better and that I’d have experienced the same results with the 90 eventually. But you’re gonna have to trust me on this though – I am thoroughly conscious of the differences in my two experiences now and why the new bike is better. I’m sure though that some will have setups that will benefit more from a 90 stem.

Part of the lesson I learned is that, at the time it feels like it fits, your bike should fit you such that you have a bit of room to adjust the stem and seat both forward or back (i.e. seat and stem aren’t at any limit of adjustment). Your body will adapt and change with your riding habits and you’ll need the room and it’s amazing what 1 centimeter can do. I would go beyond the standard bar/hub-view rule and say, when you’ve pedaled comfortably for 1 minute in a standard pace with your hands in the hoods, look down naturally (bend your neck in a relaxed and comfortable way). The handlebar should then hide the hub. If this is the case and you are comfortable, the seat has room to move either forward or back, and the stem is a 110 (allowing you in the future to stay in the range of 100 - 120), and you have a good KOPS. Then IT’S A FIT!

The End :)

I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but I'll answer just in case.

shorter stem = tighter the arc = less effort/movement to turn sharply = good for slow speeds and steering around multiple objects, but worse for gradual steering at higher speeds.

I think the top tube on my Kestrel is too long. I've scaled back from a 100mm to a 90mm, and have considered going to an 80mm. Still feeling too stretched out even with the 90mm.

It sucks, the Talon is so pretty too! :(

Big grain of salt on that one. I have 2 bikes with nearly identical setups, except one has an 80mm stem and one a 110. The difference is that the one with the shorter stem has much deeper reach in the drops, consequently my position in the drops and on the hoods is exactly the same for both bikes.

If you're hooked on a 110 mm stem, and you need to go shorter, you could always go with a handlebar that has a shorter reach to it. Yes, it's a giant pain in the ass, but it achieves the same end.

theshoemaker, was there any difference in head angle between the 52 and the 54 on the bike you were riding? I've noted a difference in handling going from 73 to 72.5 degrees, so perhaps a different head tube length, head angle or fork rake contributed to the twitch as well...

Early MTBs had shorter top tubes and longer stems. Mine from 1987 is a "medium" and it has a 130mm stem!!! Somewhere along the line, someone realized that if you lengthened the top tube and shortened the stem, you'd have the handlebars in the same position but you'd also have a bike that would not endo as easily since the rider's weight is a bit further behind the front wheel.

No difference. ...Frame geometry and fork are identical. they're both 06 Treks. The old is a 2100 and the new is a 2200. The diff is with the components. I should say that I tested several bikes during the process before I really started to understand the situation fully.

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 mm stem whereas the same frame in the 59 cm size came with a 120 mm stem.

:)

Yes, if you install a 90mm stem you are the devil-spawn incarnate. God help you.

:D Come to think of it, while I had that 90 stem my wife had frequently been telling me, "you are so mean." That, and there was a strange hankerin' for some delicious puppy heads every night.

Do you have two kids named Jack and Kelly, and a wife name Sharon? :D

BTW, what were the main reasons for recommendations against going to a smaller frame? I have a theory that men try to force fit oversized frames, like women try to force fit undersized shoes.

The fact that anyone would even CONSIDER a 90mm stem means they probably are a prime candiate for a cycling exorcism. We'll send EURO right over....

so THAT's what's wrong with me!

I use a 90mm stem...and I have the most interesting birthmark on the back of my head...