52telecaster

i am with you on standover height. 23" is the point where the boys say enough so that is the size of frame i get.

mstateglfr 

1- Sweet bike.
2- Im all in favor of doing whats needed to make the bike fit the rider. If after the changes the rider is legitimately comfortable, then super. That’s what matters most. Appearance is a distant factor.
3- I mention the 0degree stem because a 120mm 0degree stem gets the bars to the same height as a 100mm -17degree stem that is set 4cm(1.5”) higher. I think that helps sustain some of the traditional look of less stem showing and still get the bars up. And I get that many view a 0degree stem as fugly due to it not having a classice -17degree 7 shape.
Now if even more height is needed, then yeah a Technomic is up for the job.
4- This whole discussion is interesting since if it isnt addressed, the obvious elephant in the room is that modern design allows for a stack height that gets bars up, keeps visible stem to a minimum, and also allows for a low enough standover(since that seems why many buy frames that are seemingly too small for them and then use Technomic stems). Its just that modern design almost completely throws away what is considered good looking by those who are needing to use Technomic stems. Real catch22 right there!

I don’t mean to insult those with Technomic stems. Truth be told, my 80s road bikes all have seat posts that are WAY up there in height! Like 2 fist high and that is an obvious indicator of a level top tube frame that’s too small…but the reach works for me and the frame sizes are the largest made(63cm/63.5cm). My 65cm gravel frame with a slightly sloping top tube fits better and has less seat post showing as a result.
Point is- I totally get frames that don’t fit perfect in a traditional sense.

Traditional geometry sure doesn’t seem to fit many people without a good bit of modification, though perhaps that’s the case for most road bike styles regardless of time period.

I am going to design and build a road bike this winter and am incredibly excited to see how it compares to the road bikes Ive been riding for so many years.

Lazyass

I'm not saying yours is too small, I haven't even seen it.

Bandera

Q: How can you tell if an old bicycle was Race bike?
A: If the current owner can't hack the OEM gearing and riding position.

(Note the conversion to modern-ish 10 cog drivetrain & stem to max height, and I am the original owner)

-Bandera

rhm

So, it seems to me, the question is: what is this thing, here, with two wheels and a handlebar and a saddle... is it athletic equipment? Or is it an art project?

It's your call, of course, but I always lean toward art project. I wouldn't want to be seen riding a bike with an ugly stem.

Salamandrine 

Possibly painful, but it is true...


I unexpectedly ended up with a quill stem on my Clem jr, which is funny since it's essentially a mountain bike in retro clothing. After discussing my background with one of the nice folks at Rivendell, they convinced me that a longish Nitto quill was the way to go for me, and I wouldn't be happy with a sort of dirt drop riser stem. It was good advice. So the take home is: quill stems are a good fix for bikes with sloping top tubes...



My opinion: Threadless steerers are better overall: lighter, stronger, stiffer. Quill stems are a flawed design structurally. They hold the bars to the steer tube at one tiny point with significant pre-load, and are free to wiggle at the top (albeit microscopically). The actual shape is a bit of a fossil left over from when everyone rode 'french fit', and they had to be shaped like a 7 to get the bars low enough. But, even considering all that, they work perfectly well enough for 99.9%+ of the people who used them, and they allow easy adjustability, which modern stems do not.

The real reason they went away is that threadless steerers allow manufacturers to only make one fork size. Combine that with the lighter weight advantage and you have a win/win.

Salamandrine 

For me it's always both art project and athletic equipment. I want it all.

Speaking of art, I can't find the quote but I believe Picasso said something to the effect of: a new born thing is always ugly. I think that's true. When safety bicycles came out, cycling enthusiasts thought they were ugly makeshift contraptions when compared to the elegant simplicity of a penny farthing. It takes time to find the beauty in things. More than likely when quill stems and dropped bars first came out some people thought they were ugly too.

steelbikeguy

thanks for that reminder!

I nad it bookmarked, but my bookmarks are a bit cluttered <insert sheepish emoticon here>

Robert did so much work putting Velo-Pages together that it deserves to be mentioned on a regular basis!


Steve in Peoria

Andy_K 

I have actually come to terms with the fact that the Pinarello I pictured earlier is not the right sis for me, but it is comfortable as pictured and I haven't been able to talk myself into parting with it.

My A-D is as big as I can stand over (and would even be uncomfortable in a crash). The seat post is closer to what you describe, but I've still got a taller than traditional stem and it's an 80 mm stem with compact bars.



I also have multiple bikes that were once racing bikes that I've outfitted with triples. The upside is that I ride them.

T-Mar

Positive rise (above horizontal) stems go back to at least 100 years. They used to be called 'gooseneck' stems.

From an aesthetic point of view, I prefer zero rise stems on road bicycles with horizontal top tubes, provided the height is no more than about 4" above the top tube. If a frame has a sloping top tube, then I think a positive rise stem looks better.

Personally, I think a positive rise stem looks better then than tall zero rise stem, like a Technomic, even on a road frame with a horizontal top tube. So, if you're losing flexibility and need a taller stem, I'd have no qualms with installing a positive rise stem. The only situation where I have a problem with this, is to compensate for too small of a frame.

Regarding stems for threadless headsets, height changes are more involved but for me the advantages of the threadless system, as a whole, outweigh this inconvenience. As noted, threadless is lighter, stronger & stiffer. However, in my opinion, the prime advantage is that it far easier and quicker to properly pre-load the bearings and the system retains adjustment extremely well. It is the preferable system for an inexperienced mechanic.

mstateglfr 

Ha, too true. I used to use my Miyata 912 only if I was going to ride on paved trails or on routes that werent too hilly. With 39-23 being the easiest gearing…I didn’t find it too easy for many of my rides and the bike was shelved.
I put on an old Sakae triple crank that’s set up as a 50-34 compact double, changed the cassette to a 12-30t, and ive been able to use the bike for basically any ride I want ever since.

BradH

Some of the 1" threadless stuff actually looks ok on a bike with standard tubing sizes and geometry. It's just difficult finding a stem for a 1" steerer tube. Running 1 1/8" stem with a shim looks out of proportion with the rest of the bike, especially when used with 31.8 bars.

But nothing beats a "7" quill stem for looks.

jonwvara 

That's a good way to put it, Rudi. But I don't really have a choice--I can either be seen riding a bike with an ugly stem, or just not ride at all. I prefer to ride.

My basic position, I guess, it that a raised-high Technomic and a dirtdrop-type stem look equally goofy on a traditional road bike. That being so, I now lean toward the dirtdrop type, which may have some benefits in terms of safety, and also is more "logical" in an engineering sense, since it uses less material to do the job it's designed to do.

The counter-position, held by many here, I think (and one that I have not completely shaken off myself) is that although high traditional stems are indeed goofy, they're a little less goofy than the available alternatives. That's a matter of taste.

By the way, is there any consistency to stem reach specs across different types? That is, does a 100mm dirtdrop stem put the handlebars in the same position as a 100mm Technomic (assuming that both are set to the same height)?

This idea of switching stems may turn out to be moot for me, since most of my bikes require a 120mm reach for me to feel comfortable, and dirtdrop-type stems apparently stop at 100mm.

imabeliever1

High stem? Yep. Comfortable? Yep. I had just finished the rider portion of a biathlon in May. My daughter did the run part of our team. I like the Nitto stems both for looks and comfort.

rhm

I hear you , Jon!

I think @T-Mar gets at the heart of the matter. To look good, the stem has to harmonize with the frame. So a 17 degree stem looks right on a frame with horizontal top tube and 73 degree head tube; and a "lugged" stem looks best on a lugged frame; and so on. I stumbled on this photo on the 'Dawes' thread:

What's not to love?

But a TIG welded 90 degree stem looks just fine on a TIG welded frame with a sloping top tube. Unless there's a visible clash between the stem and the frame, most stems don't bother me.

The Girvin flex-stem on my Softride bike is about the ugliest thing, though. I mean sure, it's an ugly bike anyway, but the stem is just ostentatiously nasty.

Cyclist0108

...........

52telecaster

its transportation.

Andy_K 

Nah. Looks right to me.

wrk101

All my regular riders except one have dirt drop stems. My like to look at/ride rarely bikes have traditional stems. I do the same on saddles, the nice to look at get era correct Brooks saddles.

RobbieTunes

You are a horrible person.
Send me all your bikes and all is forgiven. However, fit is everything. The point of you being such a good friend is that you keep your friends on the road on two wheels. Don't ever change.

Wildwood 

If you are looking for support or sympathy for tall stems, post more in 50+ Forum or the 65+ thread over there.

Your bikes will look more like hard core racers!

jonwvara 

One aspect of my being a terrible person is that I may also may have exaggerated without really meaning to.

My friend's Univega does indeed have a very high stem, but I went out to the shed and found that my stems aren't as high as I'd remembered. (I have only ridden a couple of times since I got back from a long canoe trip a couple of weeks ago, so haven't been spending much time around my bikes.) The highest of them is on the Miyata 1000 I took on a long tour earlier this year. The frame is my usual 25"/63cm size, but I kept easing the stem upward as the tour went along. It finally settled in a pretty high place--I can fit four fingers between the headset locknut and the horizontal extension of the Technomic stem. Maybe the high position has something to do with comfort on a loaded bike. I don't know--I've only done one tour.

My other bikes all have lower stems, as it turns out. My PX-10 also has a Technomic, but there only three fingers (what I think of as "one Boy-Scout salute unit) of space between the headset locknut and the stem extension. Ditto for my Gitane TdF. A tight three fingers for the original GB stem on my Raleigh Gran Sport, and the same for the "hiduminuim" stem on my Dawes (bar and stems identical to the ones pictured in RHM's post #40, above). Both of those are right up to the limit line, I think.

All in all, it now seems to me that all but one my stems are on high side, but not so high that they look weird.

So maybe for now I'll experiment with a dirtdrop stem on the Miyata (which needs new bar tape and brake hoods anyway). Still not sure how the nominal 100mm extension on the longest available dirtdrop compares with my 120mm Technomic, or how that might feel.

Wildwood 

An even better reason for the 65+ thread.

Salamandrine 

Getting back to the point of your OP, a Technomic type stem on a bike like a Univega Gran Turismo actually is C&V. Those stems go back pretty far, at least a few years earlier than '85. I put a lot of them on bikes just like that at my LBS job, including many Gran Turismos. It wasn't considered cool -- by a long shot, but it wasn't uncommon either. A UV GT was exactly the type of bike that they typically went on.

WRT to dirt drop stems being more logical way to raise the handlebars: yes, I agree with you. It's just more logical than going up and then over. In practice though, it doesn't really seem to make much difference. I suppose that makes it mostly a fashion choice. The main thing is back in the day when dirt drop stems were called 'goosenecks' (as T-mar pointed out) they tended to be cheap and heavy, or some ridiculously overbuilt bmx type thing intended for early MTB's, and you wouldn't be inclined to put any of them on a good bike. That's where the Nitto Technomic found a niche. They were/are a high quality riser stem that was appropriate for a good bike. Now that they make quality gooseneck stems, you have a choice.

What is not C&V and simply would not have been done, is to put a Technomic on a fancy Italian racing bike. That always looks weird to me. Those things were quite pricey, and no one would have shelled out the $$$ for one if they were just going to mod it into some sort of comfort bike. There were plenty of nice touring bikes at the time that were much more suited for that sort of thing.

hoyc

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I rather dislike the look of such a tall stem with the regular "7"-shape negative rise. There are a few 0deg quill stems that are being made.

I've also noticed with some newer gravel/touring style bikes, this "limp" stem is coming back into vogue. I hated it at first, but I'm starting to come around...