# stem angle



## danahs (May 24, 2008)

what angle is this stem:


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

That is a 17 degree stem (or 73 degree, depending how you look at it). It basically puts the stem parallel to the ground given a 73 degree head tube angle. Almost retro today given the flood of 6 and 10 degree stems out there. Most of the early quill road stems were 17 degree. In order to carry a higher bar you needed to max out the quill, or buy a stem with an even longer quill. No stacks and flipping back then.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

<3 -17degree stems. Like Cervelo, my Giant TCR's headtube is long. The no-spacer look ftw.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Thinking of aesthetics for that TT, a 8 or 10 degree would look nice there. The old style bend bars are a bit "off" on that bike.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm more impressed with the bike's ability to stay upright whilst unsupported.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

Andrea138 said:


> I'm more impressed with the bike's ability to stay upright whilst unsupported.


I think it's being held up by those digital artifacts visible between the spokes of the rear wheel, just in front of the jockey cage.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Kuma601 said:


> Thinking of aesthetics for that TT, a 8 or 10 degree would look nice there. The old style bend bars are a bit "off" on that bike.


Agree. The owner could benefit from a fashion consultation. A professional fitting probably wouldn't hurt either. Typical "beginner's" bike. :wink5:


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know what angle it is, but my neck hurts just looking at it.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Opus51569 said:


> I don't know what angle it is, but my neck hurts just looking at it.


Looks like a racer's bike. Dealing with the currently fashionable tall headtubes is sometimes a pain, as seen here.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Looks like a racer's bike..


Correct. It's Ivan Basso's bike. My previous post was in jest.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

wim said:


> Correct. It's Ivan Basso's bike. My previous post was in jest.


Didn't think it wasn't. But I agree that it looks kind of stupid - a frame for retirees set up for for a flexible young guy.


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

Just confirms that Pros ride what the Sponsors send the Team and have to make them fit.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

cdhbrad said:


> Just confirms that Pros ride what the Sponsors send the Team and have to make them fit.


Ahh, for the good ol' days when racing bikes were custom, painted to the sponsor's flag colors. 

The funny thing is that while this bike does look a bit 'off' somehow, you have to consider the source of the criticism. Take a more definitively race-bred geometry and get it into the exact same position using a less agressive (or even flipped) stem, a few spacers, and 'compact' bars, and the exact same contingent would be ridiculing it's look, too.

Truth to tell, a 17deg stem is not much more than anachronism at this point. A 90 deg or even up-turned stem will (in most geometries) maximize frame stiffness and minimize the added weight from doubling steerer and HT. There's likely something wrong with an upturned 17, but lesser angles are fair game for proper fitting, personal aesthetic choices aside. 

By way of compromise, a somewhat taller head tube maximizes adjustablility, given the range of stems available and the upper limits on spacer stacks. If the best (most fit, flexible) riders in the world can get their bikes configured properly with a slammed 17, there's an argument that the designer hit the nail exactly on the head.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

The ugly part of that bike is the sloping TT not the Parrellel to the ground stem...IMO....

YMMV

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> Ahh, for the good ol' days when racing bikes were custom, painted to the sponsor's flag colors.
> 
> The funny thing is that while this bike does look a bit 'off' somehow, you have to consider the source of the criticism. Take a more definitively race-bred geometry and get it into the exact same position using a less agressive (or even flipped) stem, a few spacers, and 'compact' bars, and the exact same contingent would be ridiculing it's look, too.
> 
> ...


As one of those sources, I would not be ridiculing a bike set up for someone 6 feet tall with 4.5" of drop. Taller people have more drop because their arms are longer.

What I ridicule is a bike sold as the ultimate racing machine that requires a heavier, more flexible stem system for racers to get an adequate position. Let the duffer use a flipped 17 to get in position, or make the steerer tube able to handle more than 40mm of spacers. Having your pro riders look like they are riding clown college bikes is poor marketing.

I'm pushing 40, but I'd have to go to a set up like this if I wanted to ride Cervelo. The head tubes are too long for sporty, flexible people.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

wim said:


> Correct. It's Ivan Basso's bike. My previous post was in jest.


I sure hope it's not his "Current" bike...old Dura Ace, Old Zipp wheels...not the most current rig out there for a Pro.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> As one of those sources, I would not be ridiculing a bike set up for someone 6 feet tall with 4.5" of drop. Taller people have more drop because their arms are longer.
> 
> What I ridicule is a bike sold as the ultimate racing machine that *requires a heavier, more flexible stem system* for racers to get an adequate position. Let the duffer use a flipped 17 to get in position, or make the steerer tube able to handle more than 40mm of spacers. Having your pro riders look like they are riding clown college bikes is poor marketing.
> 
> I'm pushing 40, but I'd have to go to a set up like this if I wanted to ride Cervelo. The head tubes are too long for sporty, flexible people.


How is that stem heavier and more flexible?...Heavier and more flexible than what? Inquiring minds and all?


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

In all honesty, what would this bike look like with traditional steel frame geometry? If the seat tube and top tube were the proper traditional fit for this size rider, wouldn't the head tube be this tall anyway? Wouldn't he still be using the slammed 17 degree stem to get the drop he wanted?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> How is that stem heavier and more flexible?...Heavier and more flexible than what? Inquiring minds and all?


The shortest stem is a 0 degree. The more angle, the more material because the distance is longer. A 17 degree, 120 stem has at least 1cm more material than a 90 degree version.

And that's just the stem. You also have another 2cm of head tube and steerer that doesn't need to be there.

Who should care about little details like that? Someone who spends $5000 on a frame with a proprietary BB shell.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

turbogrover said:


> In all honesty, what would this bike look like with traditional steel frame geometry? If the seat tube and top tube were the proper traditional fit for this size rider, wouldn't the head tube be this tall anyway? Wouldn't he still be using the slammed 17 degree stem to get the drop he wanted?


On a tradition bike that size the headtube would be 3 to 4cm shorter. So no, it wouldn't require a slammed 17 degree stem.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> The shortest stem is a 0 degree. The more angle, the more material because the distance is longer. A 17 degree, 120 stem has at least 1cm more material than a 90 degree version.
> 
> And that's just the stem. You also have another 2cm of head tube and steerer that doesn't need to be there.
> 
> Who should care about little details like that? Someone who spends $5000 on a frame with a proprietary BB shell.


Fair enough....I thought you were just talking about the stem.

If I'm being pedantic, the bar position would be different (using the same bars) using a 120 stem at 0 degrees vs a 120 stem at 17 degrees........so maybe he'd still use the 120 because he liked the bars. As you know all of these things are interactive.

Back to your original comments though.......it's all about economics. The % of people that would buy that frame that would ride it with that much drop is small. Compare that with the % of people that might buy that frame if it didn't require so many spacers (if the headtube was shortened) ....i.e. how many wouldn't buy because of the spacers)....and youprobably have the reason the Head tube is the length it is.

Not defending it, but Bike Manufacturers,, (especially Carbon manufacturers) are making bikes to the meat of the target buyers wishes, not the periphery.

IME

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> Fair enough....I thought you were just talking about the stem.
> 
> If I'm being pedantic, the bar position would be different (using the same bars) using a 120 stem at 0 degrees vs a 120 stem at 17 degrees........so maybe he'd still use the 120 because he liked the bars. As you know all of these things are interactive.
> 
> ...


You're not being pedantic, just misunderstanding me. Two stems that produce an effective horizontal reach of 120mm - the 90 degree one forms a shorter line from bar to steerer than the 17 because it starts further down the steerer and takes the most direct line (perpendicular). The 17 goes past that point, then has a longer journey to angle back down to the bar. On a right triangle, the 90 degree stem is a vertex, and the 17 is a hypontenuse, which has to be longer.

Yes, it is always about economics. But the economics of having your showboat race bikes looking poorly fitted is just as much of a factor as pleasing the customers who need the lightest possible bike for to make up for their midsections.

At least Trek had the sense to make the Madone 6 in tall and short HT versions for this very reason.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> You're not being pedantic, just misunderstanding me. Two stems that produce an effective horizontal reach of 120mm - the 90 degree one forms a shorter line from bar to steerer than the 17 because it starts further down the steerer and takes the most direct line (perpendicular). The 17 goes past that point, then has a longer journey to angle back down to the bar. On a right triangle, the 90 degree stem is a vertex, and the 17 is a hypontenuse, which has to be longer.
> 
> Yes, it is always about economics. But the economics of having your showboat race bikes looking poorly fitted is just as much of a factor as pleasing the customers who need the lightest possible bike for to make up for their midsections.
> 
> At least Trek had the sense to make the Madone 6 in tall and short HT versions for this very reason.


And you are misunderstanding me....a 120 MM 90 degree stem is 120 MM long (C to C). a 120 MM 90 17 degree stem is 120 MM long ( c to c)....so in your example, with a shorter head tube getting the 2 stems placing the Handlebars at the same height, using your math, the 17 degree stem would have the bars 1MM closer to the rider. 

As to the bike looking poorly fitted...that would only be to the smallest part of the market for these bikes.

And Trek had the Market mass to support the multiple molds.

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> And you are misunderstanding me....a 120 MM 90 degree stem is 120 MM long (C to C). a 120 MM 90 17 degree stem is 120 MM long ( c to c)....so in your example, with a shorter head tube getting the 2 stems placing the Handlebars at the same height, using your math, the 17 degree stem would have the bars 1MM closer to the rider.
> 
> As to the bike looking poorly fitted...that would only be to the smallest part of the market for these bikes.
> 
> ...


Len, it's my example, and I wrote "effective *horizontal* reach of 120". As you are no doubt aware, there is no standard method of measuring stem lengths (some are measured ctc, some horizontally), which is why I used the horizontal measured reach in my example. A rider isn't going to pick a stem because it says "120mm" on the package, they are going to pick the one that actually produces 120mm of horizontal reach. If that means one is marked 120 and the other 105, so be it. Any other comparison is pointless.

Now, given the rider wants the stem to put the bar where it fits, a 90 degree stem is going to use the least material at the strongest angle to do so.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> I sure hope it's not his "Current" bike...old Dura Ace, Old Zipp wheels...not the most current rig out there for a Pro.


No, should have said "was," sorry. Basso rode this bike in 2006.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> What I ridicule is a bike sold as the ultimate racing machine that requires a heavier, more flexible stem system for racers to get an adequate position. Let the duffer use a flipped 17 to get in position, or make the steerer tube able to handle more than 40mm of spacers. Having your pro riders look like they are riding clown college bikes is poor marketing.
> 
> I'm pushing 40, but I'd have to go to a set up like this if I wanted to ride Cervelo. The head tubes are too long for sporty, flexible people.


Fair enough, and we're aligned on the 'best' bits of front end, mechanically speaking. But for fit? Perhaps not. One of the persistent myths of cycling is that pros are automatically well fit. Truth is, most of them have just felt their way around into what they believe feels / looks right to them. It turns out, many of them are wrong.

Last season, (or was it the one previous? I'll need to check my facts) a certain ProTour team was given "the treatment" by one of the luminaries of bike fit. One outcome? Almost half of the team had their drop reduced. Everyone likes getting low, but aerodynamically, getting narrow is more important, and when getting flat (on a traditional road bike at least - TT's are a more complicated story) power can go down faster than drag, decreasing speed rather than increasing it. That's differentially true for pros, but more commonly true for the weekend warrior. 

I'm not trying to make blanket statements about fit other than to say, something being marketed as 'the ultimate race bike' might very well be exactly that, for the group it is being marketed to. 

'The ultimate race bike,' in the sense of the absolute fastest bike in the world, would necessarily be custom for the engine sitting on top of it, and much less than useful to the rest of the world. Not much profit in selling only one bicycle. 

Overall, there's a pendulum to these sorts of things. A few years ago, HT's were stupidly short, as a rule. Now, several makers have gone perhaps a bit too far in the other direction. However, if you look carefully at a few of the sponsored teams whose lineups include multiple geo options within the top-end line, you'll find select team members intentionally on the so-called 'relaxed' geometry. It turns out that they value (their personal) proper fit more than what us interweb wonks think a bike should look like.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> Overall, there's a pendulum to these sorts of things. A few years ago, HT's were stupidly short, as a rule. Now, several makers have gone perhaps a bit too far in the other direction. However, if you look carefully at a few of the sponsored teams whose lineups include multiple geo options within the top-end line, you'll find select team members intentionally on the so-called 'relaxed' geometry. It turns out that they value (their personal) proper fit more than what us interweb wonks think a bike should look like.


Do you really think traditional level top tube frames had too short head tubes?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Do you really think traditional level top tube frames had too short head tubes?


Depends how 'traditional' you mean. In the 70's, when a properly-fit bike was like a small town hotel (that is, no ballroom)? No. In the 90's and early 00's, when 'stretching out' and having long top tubes was all the rage (and the CPSC ruined everything by the ridiculous 'requirement' that a bike have an inch or more of standover clearance) ? Certainly. 

Not every frame, not every maker, just as not every frame or maker has the 'too tall' problem that you seem to allege. Still, trends are trends, and they follow a bit of a pendulum. 

And for whatever it's worth, most of today's 'tall' head tubes actually harken back to the same net geometry as in the old days. For the frames at least. The thing that's really caused the problem: integrated shift levers and the concept of flat ramps leading to comfy hoods as the main riding position. If people still (rightly) thought that in deep hooks with bent elbows was the proper way to ride a bike, we'd not be having this discussion. Instead, we are setting up drop bars in configurations that are little more than complicated bullhorns, requiring excessive bar-saddle drops to get to a reasonable position, and making the hooks into some vestigial 'emergency' riding position rather than a spot of all-day comfort. That first led to the silly low HT's of earlier years, and now is returning to some semblance of sanity, if for the not-exactly best reasons - the lack of fitness of most of the population. 

But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater - the accomplished racer can use the newly-found 'old' position to set up a bike with genuine five-position bars, and the recreational rider can use a few spacers and a mildly flipped stem to get his easy cruise-around ride on his flat-ramped hoods.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> Depends how 'traditional' you mean. In the 70's, when a properly-fit bike was like a small town hotel (that is, no ballroom)? No. In the 90's and early 00's, when 'stretching out' and having long top tubes was all the rage (and the CPSC ruined everything by the ridiculous 'requirement' that a bike have an inch or more of standover clearance) ? Certainly.
> 
> Not every frame, not every maker, just as not every frame or maker has the 'too tall' problem that you seem to allege. Still, trends are trends, and they follow a bit of a pendulum.
> 
> ...


I completely agree about the glorified bullhorns.

But if you draw a horizontal line from the top of that Cervelo's head tube to the seat post, you don't end up with a lot of seat post for a 6 foot tall guy. People may have ridden bikes that large in the past, but not since the seventies. By the eighties a 6 footer would ride a 58 with a 140 (155 integrated) or so head tube and the stem in a moderate setting. This bike as a 200 or more headtube! So even if riders went one size up to a largish 60cm, that's still only a 160 (175), so why is this thing another 25mm taller? 

I think it might make sense to have headtubes 20mm longer than a traditional one, but 40mm causes more than one person out there to be limited by their frame design.


----------



## SlowMover (Jun 6, 2010)

Hmmm different strokes for different folks. I think it looks pretty darn comfy if I were to jump on it. I'm 6'1" and run 10.5cm of drop. Not b/c it looks cool, but b/c I have long monkey arms and cannot create the necessary hip angle riding less drop for my default hood position. To get my best power with say 5cm of drop I would have to ride around with my elbows bent at 90* or down in the hooks. Lot's of variation in one fit to another. I want to have equal access to my hoods, flats and drops. Hoods are 95% of my riding time so that is my point of reference where my fit is built around with ~ 30* elbow bend, 150* knee flexion and 91* hip angle.


----------



## stickboy71 (Jul 13, 2005)

Wow! And all the OP asked was the stem angle...


----------

