Stem length/rise
 

Hi all,

Just test-rode a Look 586 (the plush one with the more upright geometry) and a Felt Z4 (also plush and more upright), and realized that I really want a frame more like that because the position is one that I could easily ride 100 miles on. Until I can figure out my budget and realistically get something new, I'm hoping to make the most out of my current bike--a Felt F75 (which I frequently ride long distances on, in spite of always being fairly beat-up at the end).

I know there's more to plush bikes than the head tube and handlebar position, but I'm wondering if it's realistic to get a shorter stem with more rise to make my F75 feel a bit closer to those? Any advice on specific stems? I don't know that I need anything like the short Ritchey Comp 30-degree stem (that might be too extreme, possibly?), but I'm wondering what others in my situation might have tried?

It just sucks riding my bike after those other two...

Thanks in advance for any help.

park tools -> copying road bike setups from one bike to another.

assuming you test rode a stock 586, it should be fairly simple to guesstimate.

You must have ridden the 566, not the 586. The 566 has a taller head tube and tube shapes designed for more compliance.

http://www.lookcycle.com/products/

The head tube is 20mm taller and the reach is just slightly shorter.

It's not hard to compare the geometry of the two frames, if you post the size that you own and the one you test rode. The problem is you probably have no idea what stem angle and spacer combination was used on the bikes you test rode. That makes a big difference.

I'd caution against comparing changes to fit with those from a more compliant frame. All it takes to raise the bars about 20mm is 11-12 degrees more stem rise. Even with the same stem length, the reach is also reduced. If you flip an 84 degree stem to 96 degrees it raises the bars about 20mm and withthe same stem length, shortens the reach by about 7mm.

Thanks DaveSSS. Yeah, I think you're right about the Look model. My mistake--I keep calling it the wrong model.

Here's the geometry for the bike I've got (mine's a 52):
http://tinyurl.com/felt-f75

And here's the Look (pdf) (I rode a Medium):
http://www.lookcycle.com/products/da...ometrie566.pdf


I've looked at these both and you're absolutely right about the spacer/stem combo (I hadn't thought of that). No clue.

Maybe my best bet is to take my current bike to a shop and explain. Unfortunately I've explored this (hurt my back last summer) and got nowhere. The shop guy had a "What do you want me to do?" attitude. "Should've bought a relaxed bike instead of what you got--we couldn't GIVE them away." Blah blah blah.

I've got another shop nearby that I'll try. Not sure how much they have in stock in the way of stems, but it's a start.

Anyhow, any other insights are much appreciated. And thanks again DaveSSS.

I matched up my Spec Roubaix as close as I could to my Look 566 and the Look rides much better. I know it's a hard choice as I went through the same thing. Now that I have the Look, I'm very happy.:D

I should have added. You may want to take the Cervelo RS for a ride. Very nice bike, but the wheels suck.

Comparing the Felt to the LOOK 566, you will quickly see that a medium 566 is a larger size with a much taller head tube (44mm). The reach is actually about the same once the STA is taken into account. The 52cm Felt is really comparable to a 51cm LOOK.

If the LOOK had a 30mm stack of spacers and perhaps a 96 degree stem, the bars might have been 40-60mm higher than your Felt.

If you post your current setup, I could propose some options. If your stem is already flipped up, then I'd need to know the angle or at least the brand, since most brands only offer a couple of angles.

The steepest road bike stem is usually a 73 (-17) flipped up to 107 (+17). That angle will raise the bars about 60mm more than the lowest (73) degree angle. The horizontal length of the stem will be two sizes shorter than the advertised length, so a 110mm stem is needed just to get a 90mm horizontal length.