# stem angle - aesthetics



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

On my upcoming bike build, both these configurations produce about the same drop and same reach, from saddle to bars (eg, see chart at http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html )

1) 6º stem pointing 'down', without spacers (final angle is pointing 11º up from true horizontal).

2) 17º stem pointing 'down' (true horizontal), with 20mm spacers.

Any reason to favor one over the other, except for appearance?

And which do you guys think might be 'better looking' ? I don't see enough actual examples, locally.

Other info - 
Stem length : 100mm (probably). 
Frameset: '09 Specialized SWorks Tarmac.
This will be a more 'contemporary' look and not 'classic' or 'traditional' .


----------



## Applesauce (Aug 4, 2007)

Well, I think, so long as your bike fits, it's not that important, especially if worrying about this on a custom bike results in a goofy-looking frame. But I prefer a stem that's parallel with the top tube.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

if possible avoid spacers. In terms of aesthetics, they are ugly. They also add more force onto the fork, which is probably the weakest structural member of a frame to begin with...


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

IMO, Stem looks best if parallel to Top Tube.
I try to avoid spacers if I can; looks cleaner.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

Spacers are ugly, but a stem pointing up is uglier. 2cm of spacers isnt a lot, so it wouldn't be that noticeable, and the flat stem would more than make up for it. A stem pointing up just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> if possible avoid spacers. In terms of aesthetics, they are ugly. They also add more force onto the fork, which is probably the weakest structural member of a frame to begin with...




how much more 'force' is added by using spacers?


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Specialized specs a maximum of 40mm spacers under the stem -- wouldn't _that_ be ugly! -- but they provide 20mm of spacers. This is for an all carbon fork & steerer tube. 

So I'd interpret that any extra stress on steerer, with up to 40mm spacers, is considered acceptable by Mfr.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

2cm is not over the top. I would rather have the spacers and have a horizontal stem.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

here's a compromise: 10mm of spacers and a 10degree stem (which is more standard than a 17degree one). That way you have some height adjustability left in the steerer tube and have a more proportioned look...


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Most comments favor the horizontal stem (ie, a 17º stem, flipped down).

As the O.P., I'm beginning to think that I should first try the 17º stem with 20mm spacers.

If for some reason a horizontal stem doesn't work for me, then I could evaluate the alternative 6º stem _without_ spacers underneath, _temporarily_ putting spacers on _top_ of stem. 

I figure I can always cut the steerer, but can't add length back ;-)

Pic of the flipped-down 17º stem, immediately below, approximately 'true' for appearance.

Second pic is the flipped-down 6º stem -- it would be tilted an additional 10º up.


----------



## smokva (Jul 21, 2004)

I would always add few cm of spacers rather than put stem that points up.
Also, stems with -7/8° look best on bike to me.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

smokva said:


> I would always add few cm of spacers rather than put stem that points up.
> Also, stems with -7/8° look best on bike to me.


But, it's not possible to have _both_ !

With a typical 73º Head Tube, a -8º stem still points _up_ , about 9º from true horizontal.


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

It is useful to have some spacers left in cae, you want to go lower in future.
Other than that, a stem that is parallel to the top tube looks better.


----------



## smokva (Jul 21, 2004)

tom_h said:


> But, it's not possible to have _both_ !
> 
> With a typical 73º Head Tube, a -8º stem still points _up_ , about 9º from true horizontal.


You are right, I wasn't clear enough...what I wanted to say is stem with positive angle (that points up in relation to head tube) don't look good. Stems of negative 7/8° that points down in relation to head tube but still up in relation to top tube look best IMHO.
In short I like the looks of -8°stems  They are not horizontal, but look like they are and they don't look like they are broken as those -17° do. Also with new frames and hidden aheadsets more spacers are needed then before and -8° stem will save you of a spacer or two.


----------



## roadfix (Jun 20, 2006)

Aesthetically, it all depends on the bike. You need to stand back and imagine how both of these set ups look like in your mind picturing the entire bike.
If you think your bike might end up looking a little "hybridish" then stick to the traditional -17 degree stem.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

Life is too short to worry about stem aesthetics. Get the stem/fork combination that fits you best and allows for flexibility if your fit requirements change. If your aren't comfortable on your bike you won't ride it, regardless of how "pretty" your stem looks.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

tarwheel2 said:


> Life is too short to worry about stem aesthetics. Get the stem/fork combination that fits you best and allows for flexibility if your fit requirements change. If your aren't comfortable on your bike you won't ride it, regardless of how "pretty" your stem looks.


Of course fit & comfort trumps everything ... my original observation was that _both_ configurations produce the same drop & reach. As the build is my 'dream bike' :-D, aesthetics _do_ matter to me.

I'm thinking the horizontal 17º stem + 20mm spacers also preserves most options, as I don't have to cut the steerer as much as I would with an -8º stem _without_ spacers.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

17 and spacers would most emulate the traditional style. A smaller angle with a bit less stack would best fit current style.

You have to be very careful recommending zero spacers, as it's not the way the system was designed. Some combinations of stem and top race will interfere with one another, resulting in a top race that won't sit squarely on the bearings. 

Digressing slightly, the 'spacers are ugly' folk have taken a questionable premise to an illogical conclusion. Yeah, a 5cm stack and an up-flipped stem are goofy, but zero spacers doesn't exactly look 'right' either. There's a vast sector of bike thought about 'lower is better' that gets itself carried away. For example, recently one of the pro teams was put through a fitting session. Perhaps surprisingly, most pros have never been professionally fit. One result: half of those whose fits were changed had their stems _raised. _

Besides, there's a guy or two that may argue that stems 'belong' all the way down. 









Go ahead. Call his bike ugly. I dare ya.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Is that Merckx in the photo? (I'm not very good at recognizing the classic pros !).

His stem is pointing _below_ horizontal.


----------



## smokva (Jul 21, 2004)

danl1 said:


> Go ahead. Call his bike ugly. I dare ya.


Eddy was perfectionist about bike fit as can be seen on some cycling movies. You can be sure his frames and stems were perfect to a mm.


----------



## peyo (Aug 5, 2008)

tom_h said:


> Is that Merckx in the photo? (I'm not very good at recognizing the classic pros !).
> 
> His stem is pointing _below_ horizontal.


I think Danl1's point was that Merckx's stem was positioned higher than the "zero spacer" look.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'd set it up for 1-2cm of spacer and the stem angled up. The spacer is to give you some room for change. You may get more flexible, or switch to bars with a shallower drop or higher mounting for the levers.

I'd have the stem angled up because there is less material (steerer tube + head tube) that way, so the bike is a bit lighter and stiffer. If I was getting a custom frame built I'd have it built for a 83 degree stem pointing up because it would be even lighter and stiffer, and I think that looks functional. To me a lot of spacers or a giant head tube with a level stem looks funny but an "upjutter" stem looks fine, even though I started serious cycling long before there was anything but stems like on Eddy's bike.

But that's why they make custom bikes. Get what is right for you, but leave room for adjustment.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

*fit*



tom_h said:


> Of course fit & comfort trumps everything ... my original observation was that _both_ configurations produce the same drop & reach. As the build is my 'dream bike' :-D, aesthetics _do_ matter to me.
> 
> I'm thinking the horizontal 17º stem + 20mm spacers also preserves most options, as I don't have to cut the steerer as much as I would with an -8º stem _without_ spacers.


I wasn't really trying to rag you but more so the stem police who chime in every time someone posts a photo of a bike with a riser stem or more than a few spacers. I also think aesthetics are important but not if they compromise fit. I'm one of those cyclists with "tall stems" and I just don't understand the obsession many cyclists have with showing lots of drop. I got used to the look of riser stems, spacers and long quills a long time ago -- out of necessity. I would have to quit riding if the stem police passed a law saying everyone had to have a short stem.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

upsloping stems look like crap.

my opinion and fact.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

tarwheel2 said:


> Life is too short to worry about stem aesthetics.


actually, it's not. well, maybe if you have a dept store bike...but most riders I know care as much about form as function.


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

*In addition to aesthetics -- effect of stem length/bar reach combinations?*

Put me in the "I prefer a traditional flat step look" camp. So I'm running a 12 cm -7 degree stem on a 74 degree HA with 25 mm spacers; I've played with fewer spacers and turning the stem over but I like the flatter stem (although I'd like the look better w/less spacer). My current bars are spec'd at 85 reach, 145 drop.

Assuming a play with a few spacers to get the rise the same, what's the handling impact of a shorter stem and longer bar reach -- such as 11.5 cm stem and 90 reach bars? I know it would bring the hands on bar tops position a bit closer in, but the hands on hoods would remain the same, right?


----------



## roadfix (Jun 20, 2006)

Even at my old age I like to pose next to my bikes so aesthetics plays a big role when I build my bikes.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> if possible avoid spacers. In terms of aesthetics, they are ugly. They also add more force onto the fork, which is probably the weakest structural member of a frame to begin with...


I randomly recall reading somewhere that you do want at least a minimal spacer to actually relieve stress on the fork at the interface of the stem and headset. Also, you may want to leave a bit of space to handle different sized stems (should you not be buying the be-all end-all of stems) which take up slightly different amounts of the steerer tube.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

smokva said:


> Eddy was perfectionist about bike fit as can be seen on some cycling movies. You can be sure his frames and stems were perfect to a mm.


Anecdote, but he's famous for stopping and adjusting his stem and/or seat _during _a race.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

tom_h said:


> Is that Merckx in the photo?




fo' real?


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

After doing a mock-up on my actual frame, I'm now thinking " _6º stem pointing 'down', without spacers ( final angle is pointing 11º up from true horizontal )_ "
​will look best.


Why? Posts #2 & #4 had it right : _"... prefer a stem that's parallel with the top tube. ... "_
_" ... Stem looks best if parallel to Top Tube ... "_
​I erred by not posting a pic or mentioning my frame -- it's a Specialized S-Works Tarmac -- and it has a sloping top tube of about 10º. 

I'll start off conservatively, no spacers under the stem, and _temporarily_ leave extra steerer tube above the stem ... and go from there. 

Thanks for all the comments :thumbsup: 

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2009)

Good point about aesthetics with regard to stems/top tubes. On a frame with a sloping top tube, a stem with some rise doesn't looks as bad to me. I recently built up a steel frame with standard diameter tubes and a horizontal top tube, as God intended. A stem with rise looks horrendous on it. It's bad enough that that the fork is threadless. But one trick that softens the glare (to my eyes) of a bunch of spacers is that, fortunately, my headset is alloy instead of black. So my first spacer in the stack is alloy as well, and it simply makes it look like it's part of the headset.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

Traditional asthestics cannot be met with todays threadless headsets and lack of quill stems.
Lets take the photo of Merckx above. If you were to draw a line from the headset to the bars you would have a postive rise to his stem. Merckx would have had a bunch of spacers to get into a similar position.

If a traditional (if one could even call the modern style of bikes traditional) look is desired a much taller head tube would need to be used or spacers that matched the length of the exposed quill, as on Merckx's ride, or anyone of that era.


----------



## Ibashii (Oct 23, 2002)

danl1 said:


> [...]For example, recently one of the pro teams was put through a fitting session. Perhaps surprisingly, most pros have never been professionally fit. One result: half of those whose fits were changed had their stems _raised. _ [...]


Do you have a reference to this story? It sounds like an interesting thing to read about, as I've often wondered about pros and fitting...

I'm a very tall person, and on my newest bike, a Time with a mildly sloping top tube (frame size XL), they built it up with 3 spacers (1x15mm, 1x10mm, 1x5mm) totaling 30 mm, which enable the 130 mm stem to be almost horizontal (i.e. just about parallel to the top tube). Although it's 5-10mm of spacers more than my aesthetic ideal, it looks OK and fits perfectly...the spacers are the same color/pattern of the frame with the same Time logo as the headset. Also, I was impressed that they bothered to give me three different size spacers instead of 3x10mm; it will be very easy to fine-tune.

I think most modern frames look a little goofy WITHOUT any spacers...anywhere from 10-20 mm--assuming a sufficient seat/bar height differential--looks about right most of the time. It also seems like smaller frames are more at risk to look like they have too many spacers.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Ibashii said:


> Do you have a reference to this story? It sounds like an interesting thing to read about, as I've often wondered about pros and fitting....


Several references in this article about Saxo Bank and their new sponsor Specialized:
http://www.velonews.com/article/86511/finding-the-fit-saxo-bank-embraces-bg-fit


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

I'll throw mine in since it has a 17 as of the other day, looks ok to me. My visual preference is 8 degree on sloping (2-3cm ST drop) on compacts 6 degrees matches well. Function over aesthetics but if you can get both...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Kuma601 said:


> I'll throw mine in since it has a 17 as of the other day, looks ok to me. My visual preference is 8 degree on sloping (2-3cm ST drop) on compacts 6 degrees matches well. Function over aesthetics but if you can get both...



Another (mine  ) with a -17 degree stem (though no spacers underneath the stem)...72.5 degree head tube angle:


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Wookie...that looks good. What HS is on it?

The FSA Orbit on mine adds a bit to the stem height. A lower profile would be to my visual liking.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Kuma601 said:


> Wookie...that looks good. What HS is on it?
> 
> The FSA Orbit on mine adds a bit to the stem height. A lower profile would be to my visual liking.


It's a Profile Design headset...the top cap adds about 1cm to the headtube length. I'd like it to be a bit shorter, but overall...works very well


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

Kuma601 said:


> Wookie...that looks good. What HS is on it?
> 
> The FSA Orbit on mine adds a bit to the stem height. A lower profile would be to my visual liking.


A lot of headsets are sold with both a tall and a short cap. My Cane Creek was. Go to your LBS and ask them, and they might be able to get you a shorter cap without having to change headsets!


----------



## schnee (Jan 27, 2006)

danl1 said:


> Besides, there's a guy or two that may argue that stems 'belong' all the way down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Counterpoint: Sheldon Brown

*Why The Seven?*​
The "7" shaped handlebar stem gets its shape from a historical accident. The style in the old days was to ride rather tall frames by our standards, and the older handlebar shapes had less drop than modern designs. (When the transition from the "highwheeler" to the "safety" bike occurred, the idea of being able to stand over the frame did not occurr immediately. Cyclists were in the habit of having to mount and dismount on the fly.) The stem would usually be inserted so that only an inch or less stuck out of the headset. The "7" shape allowed the lowest possible handlebar placement with as much forward reach as was wanted.

Nowadays, most cyclists set their stems all the way up (at the "minimum insertion" mark). With the smaller frame sizes used now, the "7" shaped stem is an atavism, a stylistic holdover from an obsolete technology. An extended "7" stem is two sides of a triangle. A stem that follows the diagonal, directly from just above the headset to the handlebar clamp makes more sense geometrically. Such a stem would be as strong as a similarly made "7" stem, but substantially lighter. It would also be more crash-worthy. Modern Allen-bolt stems are certainly safer than the old style that had a protruding hex head and a sharp rear corner, but the shape is still a threat to the rider's groin in a collision.

There is a trend to use "mountain-bike type" stems on road bikes, and it really makes a lot of sense. All that the "7" stem has going for it is tradition.​
Sheldon never rode like Eddy, but I'd say he knew more about cycling technology and history.

Personally, I think steel frames demand parallel stems, but super-compact aggressive carbon bikes can go either way. 

Threadless stems are _so_ much stronger than threaded that a few spacers doesn't mean anything. Manufacturers usually have a specified stack limit and (on carbon steerers) torque limits but they're extremely conservative for liability reasons, so just follow their directions and don't worry about it.


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

Here is another 17 degree stem. 10 degree might look better but the frame has a longish head tube.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Here's my bike. It has the -10 degree pro vibe stem (currently a 140mm)/pro vibe bar and carbon spacers.


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

Ok, last photo has a setup w/ many spacers. 

EXCLUDING wtf it looks like - would not a stem, pointing up from a point upon one spacer to the exact position the bar is now, not be stronger, stiffer, and lighter?

Certainly someone must've tried both setups - let's hear about it!


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

My bike above has 27mm of spacers. The Pro vibe stem has a 44mm stack height. 

I weight about 170 at 6'2'. *The carbon forks have a metal steerer tube*. The handlebars are the oversized provibe and almost too stiff.

The geometry of the 5.9madones is such that if you remove all spacers you're in a pretty extreme position. Most of the modern bikes made today have the sloping top tube and typically have a headset that sits 30mm higher than the older madones.

I actually tried removing the 20mm spacer and flipping the stem so it angles up, I didn't notice any increase in stiffness through the corners or while decending. 

I dont' get any shimmering or shaking while decending fast or taking corners with the current setup while racing so I leave like it is.

For me asthetics aren't important, I put function before fashion.


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

Hey, my setup is just like yours!

And I'll bet we wouldn't notice an increase in stiffness losing spacers and using an extreme rise stem.

BUT, it should be stronger, stiffer, and use less stuff=lighter

Has anyone tried this, and is there a perceivable increase in stiffness?


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

I mentioned above I have tried dropping the spacers down to 7mm and I didn't notice anything about it. I've got stems with 6, 10, 12, 17 degrees in lengths from 110 to 140. I've never noticed any lack of stiffness in the front, except that certain stems do indeed flex, I stay away from those.

Stiffness is the result of a combination of things. My bike above with the really stiff Pro Vibe stem and handlebars, and a DT1.2 3X 32 spoke front wheel is about as stiff as it needs to be. 

What do we hope to accomplish by making a stiff set up stiffer?


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

Well, how about getting away from a bunch of spacers on a carbon steerer?


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

*Update*



tom_h said:


> After doing a mock-up on my actual frame, I'm now thinking" _6º stem pointing 'down', without spacers ( final angle is pointing 11º up from true horizontal )_ "​will look best. Why? Posts #2 & #4 had it right :_"... prefer a stem that's parallel with the top tube. ... "_
> _" ... Stem looks best if parallel to Top Tube ... "_​


Here's a link to a pic of my In-Progress build ... the 6º stem feels & looks pretty good, IMHO : 
​http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2098170&postcount=5

One can get a good fit with either 17º or 6º stems, but I now believe a stem more-or-less parallel to the the top tube, is preferred for appearance ... amount of spacers is secondary (within reason).


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

tom_h said:


> *Is that Merckx in the photo?* (I'm not very good at recognizing the classic pros !).
> 
> His stem is pointing _below_ horizontal.


Please say that was a joke!!!!


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Please say that was a joke!!!!


 Wasn't a joke ... I am not yet well-versed in the history of cycle racing ... but I am learning, as my appreciation for the sport grows.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

All this talk about flipping stems and such. Don't you think you could really uglify a bike with a flipped stem? Anyway, what is a good amount of spacers to have so that you don't look like a Fred and have a jacked up stem?


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

Zero spacers looks best IMO but ultimately comfort is what matters. 25 years ago I spend a season racing a bike with 5" of drop from my position in saddle to the tops of the bars. To this day I STILL can't feel my testicles! BUT!! the bike looked totally cool with that setup.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Does anyone else think it's silly that a frame that "fits" is so tall @ the head tube that the stem needs to slope downwards to correct the handlebar height? I realize that bikes 56cm and below have a minimum front end height but downward sloping stems on bikes above sizes that need them are actually "wrong" from an engineering standpoint. The taller front end adds weight, flex and weakness, all in the name of looking right?


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

For me the newer sloping top tubes that raised the height of the handbars looks a little different.

I kind of prefer the way bikes use to have a top tube that is parallell with the ground. It seems the frames borrowed a design feature of the sloping down tubes from the womens bikes with their comfort geometry. 

Of course this isn't a fashion show and the only thing that matter is that you can ride what you have. If you're comfortable you'll produce more power and that is what matters.

I actually cut about 15mm off my steertube a few weeks ago. I haven't noticed any increased stiffness at all. Of course we're not talking about cyclocross, this is a roadbike and I'm not running on anything super rough.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

heathb said:


> For me the newer sloping top tubes that raised the height of the handbars looks a little different.....


A sloped top tube does not necessarily raise the handle bar height ... it just simply reduces the "stand over " height (distance between crotch and top tube). 
(CORRECTION Above: "stand over " height is _reduced_ , and distance between crotch & top tube is _increased_.)

If you look at the Specialized Tarmac bikes (curved/sloping top tube) being ridden by Saxo Bank and Quick Step, there is no "compromise" in the saddle-to-handlebar drop, from the pro's point of view.

For the consumer, the top-end Tarmacs are offered in two geometries:
-- "Team", with short head tubes and very large saddle to bar drop, presumably what the pro teams use.
-- "Standard" , with "normal" head tube length.

Eg, in a 56 cm frame size,
-- Team Head Tube = 150mm
-- standard Head Tube = 170mm


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Thanks for the info tom_h.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Oxtox said:


> actually, it's not. well, maybe if you have a dept store bike...but most riders I know care as much about form as function.


The term OCP didn't come out of nowhere.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

More than 2 cm of spacers (Especially with a riser stem) usually means you picked geometry that doesn't fit you. You picked a bike that you liked, not a geometry that fit your flexibility and your style of riding.

There are too many good bikes with longer headtubes that are a better solution.....giving a safer front end on a bike that fits you.

Len


----------



## android (Nov 20, 2007)

tarwheel2 said:


> Life is too short to worry about stem aesthetics. Get the stem/fork combination that fits you best and allows for flexibility if your fit requirements change. If your aren't comfortable on your bike you won't ride it, regardless of how "pretty" your stem looks.


Especially considering the fact the all threadless stems are ugly and clunky compared to the graceful lines of quill stems. It's like arguing which color of lipstick to put on a pig.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

*My two cents.*

Several bicycle/fork manufacturers (including Trek which, while some will feel the need to bash, has some expertise in this area) recommend at least a 5mm spacer between the headset cap and the stem. This is to minimize "point loading", i.e., concentrating all lateral flex on the steer tube at one "point."

Conversely, a lot of steer tube under the stem may exacerbate lateral flex.

And while there is no definitive rule about a spacer above the stem, our service manager (with 35+ years experience) recommends that the stem clamp 100% on the steer tube, particularly with carbon steer tubes. The damage he's seen over the years is a "crushing" of the steer tube when the stem clamps several mm above the top of the tube.

By the way, Len is right.

And I don't think this looks too bad.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

How many spacers do most of the pro cyclists out there use?

Seems like a majority of the riders here are advocating about .5 to 2cm of spacers, but then there are another group of riders who are suggesting to jack up your stems beyond 4cm.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2009)

rook said:


> How many spacers do most of the pro cyclists out there use?
> 
> Seems like a majority of the riders here are advocating about .5 to 2cm of spacers, but then there are another group of riders who are suggesting to jack up your stems beyond 4cm.


Why in the name of heaven does it matter how many spacers the "pros" use?

The move from the threaded to threadless headset systems effectively dropped the front end of a standard bicycle from 1.5 to 2.5 cm.

It also took adjustability out of the system if you do, as many people advocate and run the system without any spacers.

I agree that threadless systems should be run with some spacer below the stem, as well as some spacer above the stem.

This allows for proper bearing load and clamping force on the steer tube, as well as adjustability.

I see nothing wrong with 20 mm ( this is 2 cm - approximately 3/4 of an inch) below the stem and a further 10 or 15 mm above the stem to assure proper clamping AND provide the room to adjust the stem both up and down.

Personally, the sight of a threadless system with no spacers above or below the stem - to me, is as ugly as sin, and a promise for future fit problems.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Richard said:


> Several bicycle/fork manufacturers (including Trek which, while some will feel the need to bash, has some expertise in this area) recommend at least a 5mm spacer between the headset cap and the stem. ...


Interesting idea, and it has a functional purpose, too. Many fork assembly instructions say to cut the steerer tube, to 3mm _below_ top of stem.

I was going to cut my new fork tomorrow, and I'm glad I read this -- I think I'll put a 5mm spacer on top of stem.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I may not have been clear. I meant to say a 5mm spacer between the top of the headset and the bottom of the stem.

And enough spacer above the stem to insure that, first, the stem is clamping 100% on the steer tube and second, which allows at least that 3mm between the top of the steer tube and the "top cap" which threads into the star nut or compression plug to properly adjust the bearings.

It seems everybody got my drift however.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

toomanybikes said:


> Why in the name of heaven does it matter how many spacers the "pros" use?
> 
> The move from the threaded to threadless headset systems effectively dropped the front end of a standard bicycle from 1.5 to 2.5 cm.



Well, I was just curious how many spacers (on average) most pros use. I know it doesn't really have any bearing on me. I was just curious. That's all.

So, how is it that the industry move from threaded to threadless headset systems dropped the front end 1.5 to 2.5 cm? I just thought that the only difference is in the headset and clamping mechanism. The height of the system is purely dependent on spacers, and not really on the type of headset.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

toomanybikes said:


> ... I see nothing wrong with 20 mm ( this is 2 cm - approximately 3/4 of an inch) below the stem and a further 10 or 15 mm above the stem to assure proper clamping AND provide the room to adjust the stem both up and down. ...


In some cases, 10-15 mm of spacers _above_ stem may not conform with the fork mfr's recommendation. Eg, see pic below of Specialized's arrangement. 

The Spec'y expansion plug is 48mm long, and provides additional strength to the carbon steerer tube. To overlap symmetrically with the stem (40 mm stack height in my case, a 3T brand), the plug should extend about 4mm _below_ and _above_ the stem's extent. 

As the steerer tube should terminate 3mm _below_ the the _top_ edge of the spacer _above_ the stem, this top spacer should be 4+3 = 7 mm. In practice I suppose a 5 or 10mm spacer above stem, would be fine. A 15mm spacer might be pushing the envelope. Specy's right-hand picture is an exaggerated depiction of this.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

I use a 2.5mm spacer on top of my stem. Seems to me you'd want to use a smaller spacer so more of the top cap bolt can thread thru the starnut?

I find a 2.5mm metal spacer on top and bottom of the stem is better as the carbon spacers tend to wear over time and metal spacer holds up to compression better than carbon.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

heathb said:


> ... I find a 2.5mm metal spacer on top and bottom of the stem is better as the carbon spacers tend to wear over time and metal spacer holds up to compression better than carbon.


Keep in mind there's not _that_ much compression force on the spacers ... just enough to pre-load the headset bearings and remove excessive play.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Len J said:


> More than 2 cm of spacers (Especially with a riser stem) usually means you picked geometry that doesn't fit you. You picked a bike that you liked, not a geometry that fit your flexibility and your style of riding.
> 
> There are too many good bikes with longer headtubes that are a better solution.....giving a safer front end on a bike that fits you.
> 
> Len


Len, why are more spacers than that (i.e. 40 mm or more) within spec for all forks, even carbon ones - if this wasn't in the range of normal adjustability?

My personal opinion is that components have a range of adjustability and if you can get a good fit within that range, it is proper geometry. This includes saddle rails, seat post, stem height and stem length.

Yes, maybe extremes in any of these means you should be looking at a different type of frame, but 20mm is not even close to the maximum allowed spacer height.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

All this confusion and angst caused over threadless stems! What was so bad with quills? Put it on, it works and looks good. Your back hurts? Raise it up little. It still looks good. Forget about it. All this reminds me of a bad case of SSP syndrome... Solution in Search of a Problem.

brewster


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

brewster said:


> ... What was so bad with quills? Put it on, it works and looks good...


Let me guess, you ride a traditional geometry steel frame? ;-)

re quills ... well,
-- quills sometimes can 'rock' and will not be as rigid.
-- moisture /sweat can leak inside and seize-up the stem to the steerer.
-- quill can sometimes seize-up _without_ overt moisture.
-- the wedge or expander on a quill stem would likely rupture/crack a carbon steerer (you can argue that "carbon doesn't belong on a steerer", but that's a separate debate).

All systems have their pros and cons.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Does anybody know what, on average, is the amount of spacers that pro cyclists use? I know that even amongst pros there probably is some variability in spacer usage, but just curious. Or maybe someone would know, like, what's the average amount of spacers that racers (even Cat 1 & 2s) use?


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

rook said:


> Does anybody know what, on average, is the amount of spacers that pro cyclists use? I know that even amongst pros there probably is some variability in spacer usage, but just curious....


Most photos at VeloNews are showing many elite pros riding bikes with no spacers and often super-short head tubes ... those guys have near horizontal backsides even when riding on the brake hoods.

Eg, see
http://www.velonews.com/photo/90467
http://www.velonews.com/photo/90261

Most "mere mortals" don't have the fitness and conditioning that would enable riding 6 hrs @ 25-27 MPH average , like that ...


----------



## cyclequip (Oct 20, 2004)

tom_h said:


> Most photos at VeloNews are showing many elite pros riding bikes with no spacers and often super-short head tubes ... those guys have near horizontal backsides even when riding on the brake hoods.
> 
> Eg, see
> http://www.velonews.com/photo/90467
> ...


And it's also a fact that when Scott Holz and Andy Pruitt did the BG FIT with Saxo Bank a majority of the riders benefitted from having their handlebars raised. The extreme bar drop is a particular Euro Pro legacy belief that this was the only way to get "aero" and combat the winds of Flanders. For many riders it is counterproductive.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

cyclequip said:


> And it's also a fact that when Scott Holz and Andy Pruitt did the BG FIT with Saxo Bank a majority of the riders benefitted from having their handlebars raised. The extreme bar drop is a particular Euro Pro legacy belief that this was the only way to get "aero" and combat the winds of Flanders. For many riders it is counterproductive.


Thanks guys. That is pretty interesting about the Saxo pro riders. Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read a little more about it.


----------



## Ibashii (Oct 23, 2002)

cyclequip said:


> And it's also a fact that when Scott Holz and Andy Pruitt did the BG FIT with Saxo Bank a majority of the riders benefitted from having their handlebars raised. The extreme bar drop is a particular Euro Pro legacy belief that this was the only way to get "aero" and combat the winds of Flanders. For many riders it is counterproductive.


Certainly true, and we all can learn something from what went on with this and at least one other pro fitting experiment. Truth is, there are MANY reasons why we should all ignore how pro bikes are set up...

...and just my two cents on spacers: there is not, AFAIK, any evidence to suggest that manufacturer recommendations on spacer placement and quantity shouldn't be trusted, and many of them say you can put up to 40mm of spaces between the headset and stem. Just because some people find it aesthetically displeasing doesn't mean that it's mechanically dangerous, inefficient, or that someone who does it bought the wrong size frame. Too many factors go into sizing a frame to say that...that's why the adjustment points on a road bike need to be so fungible in the first place. Add to that the increasing variety of headsets and stem-clamping methods--I hope I figure out what's going on inside my Time "Quick Set" headset before I have to take it apart--and it becomes even more clear that blanket statements about xx millimeters of spacers being the absolute limit don't apply to every rider on every properly-sized frame.


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*What about the 80's Pro's???*

This is quite an interesting thread and I guess it’s really a case of to each their own and what you find aesthetically pleasing. That said I guess too many spacers could be a bad thing from a safety perspective.

I have an interest in older/retro steel bikes. On these bikes I run quill stems for a certain retro look. I’ve enclosed a few photo’s for you. Two of the three bikes are custom built so defo fit me (the stem on the Mercian is now about 1.5-2cm lower than photo’s and on the Raleigh it’s up by about 1.5cm).

These bikes have a reasonable amount of drop, but not anywhere near ‘pro level’ as my back ain’t as good as it used to be, like many 40 yr olds. If I had run an ahead system I’d have needed c3-4cm’s of spacers to make these frames work and personally I think that would have looked fine/better than a larger frame

If you look at the Hetchins (which has now got a quill stem) I initially used a Grammo stem with a rise to get the position right, a horizontal stem would have needed more spacers and as I say I think would have looked fine. 

If I had bought frames with longer head tubes to get height up front it would have increased the length of the seat tube (unless I’d had an extended head tube which I don’t like) which would leave me with very little exposed seat post, so whilst things may fit/look better up front, in back things’d look equally odd/bad.

In this example should I ever convert to ahead I’d rather have more seat post and some spacers than the other way around – make sense? 

Anyhow that’s all just personal preference. So here’s my question. 

If you look at pictures of pro’s in the 70’s and 80’s – Like Hinault/Lemond etc. They all have a similar look to my set up i.e. a fair bit of post and a raised quill stem. Assuming they were riding an ahead system instead they too would all have 2/3/4cm’s of spacers showing.

Does that simply mean that pro’s nowadays have had to force themselves to adopt lower profile positions to improve aerodynamic efficiency (or perceived efficiency) and if that’s the case does that really mean it should translate to us mortals??

From an aesthetic perspective I too prefer less spacers than more, but I also don’t want to ride a barn gate with an overly long top tube and no exposed seat post just to get the right height up front. Case in point being my carbon Guru Geneo which uses a hiddenset and as a result needs 4cm’s of spacers, a standard aheadset would have meant I could have got away with 2cm.

Used to race on this Avanti and that had a much lower position, after 100km’s of racing my back was killing me!!!!


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*More retro examples.*

A few other retro examples of quilled bikes that fit their owners but that would require some spacers if modernised - savvy.

If buying new ahead equipped bikes would these guys really have no spacers? The answer is probably no and I doubt they'd have bought bigger frames either!

If that Sachs had a hiddenset the owner would need about 3-4cm's of spacers.

So spacers, wrong? Probably not. 

As for you lucky flexible blighters who need none, good on you! Less do look better than more, but methinks a few is ok!


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*I agree!*



Ibashii said:


> Certainly true, and we all can learn something from what went on with this and at least one other pro fitting experiment. Truth is, there are MANY reasons why we should all ignore how pro bikes are set up...
> 
> ...and just my two cents on spacers: there is not, AFAIK, any evidence to suggest that manufacturer recommendations on spacer placement and quantity shouldn't be trusted, and many of them say you can put up to 40mm of spaces between the headset and stem. Just because some people find it aesthetically displeasing doesn't mean that it's mechanically dangerous, inefficient, or that someone who does it bought the wrong size frame. Too many factors go into sizing a frame to say that...that's why the adjustment points on a road bike need to be so fungible in the first place. Add to that the increasing variety of headsets and stem-clamping methods--I hope I figure out what's going on inside my Time "Quick Set" headset before I have to take it apart--and it becomes even more clear that blanket statements about xx millimeters of spacers being the absolute limit don't apply to every rider on every properly-sized frame.


Good points!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

DannyBoy said:


> This is quite an interesting thread and I guess it’s really a case of to each their own and what you find aesthetically pleasing. That said I guess too many spacers could be a bad thing from a safety perspective.
> 
> Anyhow that’s all just personal preference. So here’s my question.
> 
> ...


Lot's of reasons for the differences.

Stack height of threadless headsets is less than threaded.......makes it seem like you need more spacers.

Ramp on bars and position of hoods is higher today than then.

frame geometry has gotten lower. Used to be pretty standard to have square frames. & they were speced taller.

That being said, there are many ways to get the front end up on a threadless headset bike without comprimising.........using a combination of head tube extension, slightly sloping top tube & small number of spacers.

here are 2 different approaches to the same geometry. In the Sachs, it has less than 2.0 of spacers & it is totally balanced aesteticially. I have about 6 CM of seat to bar drop BTW. The Serotta, which has the exact same contact points, has a HT extension and a 2 degree TT slope & .5 of spacers. To me a very clean look.

Len


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

Len J said:


> Lot's of reasons for the differences.
> 
> Stack height of threadless headsets is less than threaded.......makes it seem like you need more spacers.
> 
> ...


Clearly both fit. Your Serotta is an example of what I'm less keen on as there's not much seat post showing and clearly thats an aesthetic preference of mine - me like seat post!

You Sachs (which I have looked at with great envy many times before on various Sachs posts) is a perfect example of what I do like. Some post, some spacers and a shallow rise on the stem. Not a million miles away from my Hetchins.

With my next custom frame I'll run ahead and try to acheive that near perfect aesthetic balance.

Both nice bikes, but for me your Sachs wins it, and not just because it's a Sachs!

I ride a 55.5-56cm top tube. My Guru is a 57cm and runs 4cm of spacers, to get to 2cm's the frame just wouldn't have fitted - damn hiddensets!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

DannyBoy said:


> Clearly both fit. Your Serotta is an example of what I'm less keen on as there's not much seat post showing and clearly thats an aesthetic preference of mine - me like seat post!
> 
> You Sachs (which I have looked at with great envy many times before on various Sachs posts) is a perfect example of what I do like. Some post, some spacers and a shallow rise on the stem. Not a million miles away from my Hetchins.
> 
> ...


I could have gotten more seatpost on the Serotta with a little more slope on the TT or a slightly shorter HT.

I agree the Sachs is the perfect balance. Richie told me that he designs the entire whole around no more than 1.8 CM of spacers. The other thing that affects the look of the seatpost on the Serotta is the seat...the Swallow has a large drop from the seat to the seat rails unlike the SLR on the Sachs. I se the Serotta for mega distance and multiple day rides.

Your Guru is a great example of the effect of low profile headsets.....they vary in stack height pretty dramaticially. For me, as nice a bike as that is, I wouldn't ever buy a bike that I needed 4 CM of spacers to get my fit. There are too many good bikes that wouldn't need that to fit my contact points.. I'd be bugged every time I looked at the bike. 

You are right it's personal preference.........but If I'm paying money for a frame, not only does it have to ride the way I want, it has to look the way I want it. Obviously YMMV.

One of the reasons I like custom is because I don't have to comprimise Looks to get the fit and the ride I want.

Len


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

cyclequip said:


> And it's also a fact that when Scott Holz and Andy Pruitt did the BG FIT with Saxo Bank a majority of the riders benefitted from having their handlebars raised. The extreme bar drop is a particular Euro Pro legacy belief that this was the only way to get "aero" and combat the winds of Flanders. For many riders it is counterproductive.


It's either this or going long, there are considerable advantages to going lower if you can condition yourself to handle it which most fit amateur athletes can. You just need to spend a day with a powermeter to see the advantages for competitive cycling. A good aero position is better than anything you can buy for a road bike.


----------



## bikenj (Feb 27, 2002)

If your drop and reach are good, my only suggestion would be to keep some spacers for resell value.


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

Len J said:


> I could have gotten more seatpost on the Serotta with a little more slope on the TT or a slightly shorter HT.
> 
> I agree the Sachs is the perfect balance. Richie told me that he designs the entire whole around no more than 1.8 CM of spacers. The other thing that affects the look of the seatpost on the Serotta is the seat...the Swallow has a large drop from the seat to the seat rails unlike the SLR on the Sachs. I se the Serotta for mega distance and multiple day rides.
> 
> ...


The Guru was an 'impulse' buy following the death of my custom steel compact Roberts. I needed a race bike asap for a 160km race (did it in 4.31) and Roberts had too long a wait so it was stock from a New Zealand shop or nothing.

Oddly the Guru scenario presented itself on nearly every modern carbon frame I looked at. To get a half decent head tube (the Guru is 16cm) length I had to buy too big in the top tube.

It is indeed an aesthetic problem caused in large part by the damn hidden set, sadly they're here to stay so, like you, it'll be custom from here on in!

Actually aesthetics aside that Guru is a damn nice ride, got a nice pair of Tune/Niobium/CX Ray's on it now (c1375g).

Shame Mr Sachs isn;t taking any more orders, I mised the cut about 6 mnths or so back. Wanted one very much like the champagne and yellow posted by me above. Not so keen on his Red or Blue and White jobs, your white with red good, very Eddie!!!:thumbsup: 

As for the Serotta I'd have gone for more slope, mind you I had a thing for compacts a few yrs back as borne out by this rather extreme NZ built Foster - not one of my best idea's, think it was 46cm c-t (the dead Roberts was a more moderate 52cm c-t).:idea:


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*No spacers..........*

This is my dead Roberts, for me I'd prefer it to have about 2cm of spacers and a correspondingly shorter head tube, that's what I'll do when I get round to having another made! A bit like the one of their website (mine started life the same blue pre respray pre death by rollerblader!).


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

DannyBoy said:


> The Guru was an 'impulse' buy following the death of my custom steel compact Roberts. I needed a race bike asap for a 160km race (did it in 4.31) and Roberts had too long a wait so it was stock from a New Zealand shop or nothing.
> 
> Oddly the Guru scenario presented itself on nearly every modern carbon frame I looked at. To get a half decent head tube (the Guru is 16cm) length I had to buy too big in the top tube.
> 
> ...


I've heard the Guru's ride nice...but, for me the required spacers would have made it a no go.

The serotta was actually a custom someone ordered from the factory and walked away from their deposit. It turned out that it could have been built for me. I also could get my position with no spacers as shown. Best of all I got it for about 30% of list price. I'm not crazy about the paint (it's going in for a repaint), but the ride & fit is perfect.

I don't think, at least in the US, you need to sacrifice fit or looks for a great bike...there are too many good one's out there.

Nice bikes BTW..those roberts are nice.

Len


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*No such luck................*



Len J said:


> I don't think, at least in the US, you need to sacrifice fit or looks for a great bike...there are too many good one's out there.
> 
> Nice bikes BTW..those roberts are nice.
> 
> Len


I remember when the Roberts died being quite frustrated by the lack of options in NZ, or I should say the lack of options that are nearby.

If you live In Auckland you buy in Auckland etc etc.


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

Watch out the spacer police are round here :crazy:


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

He he he, reminds me of a post from about 6yrs ago headed up "Stem stackin' controversy"!!!


----------



## acckids (Jan 2, 2003)

*Oh my Gosh........*

There are 55mm of spacers under that stem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares. This is a 63cm and they don't make anything bigger in my price range with a 59cm top tube. The spacers vs stem rise is relative. Some of us can't afford custom so we work around it. I'm 6'2.5" and have a 93.5cm inseam. Long legs/short torso. I need a large frame for the headtube but a smaller frame for a shorter top tube. It's a curse but I still enjoy riding. Someone telling me I need 20mm of spacers doesn't know what they are talking about.


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*Your Trek looks fine to me.....................*



acckids said:


> There are 55mm of spacers under that stem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares. This is a 63cm and they don't make anything bigger in my price range with a 59cm top tube. The spacers vs stem rise is relative. Some of us can't afford custom so we work around it. I'm 6'2.5" and have a 93.5cm inseam. Long legs/short torso. I need a large frame for the headtube but a smaller frame for a shorter top tube. It's a curse but I still enjoy riding. Someone telling me I need 20mm of spacers doesn't know what they are talking about.


Mind you I can't really make a negative comment based on my own Guru!! Looks fine to me and if that's what makes it fit/rideable that's fine. See if you had an old steel frame that's the rise you'd get off a quill stem and no one would comment.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

bikenj said:



> If your drop and reach are good, my only suggestion would be to keep some spacers for resell value.


I buy and modify my bicycles for myself, to hell with resell value and what some other plonker needs


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

acckids said:


> There are 55mm of spacers under that stem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares. This is a 63cm and they don't make anything bigger in my price range with a 59cm top tube. The spacers vs stem rise is relative. Some of us can't afford custom so we work around it. I'm 6'2.5" and have a 93.5cm inseam. Long legs/short torso. I need a large frame for the headtube but a smaller frame for a shorter top tube. It's a curse but I still enjoy riding. Someone telling me I need 20mm of spacers doesn't know what they are talking about.



A lot of spacers on a large frame is ok, but a lot of spacers on a small frame looks really out of proportion.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

*Just dial it in.*

With all the different frame designs, as well as the "old school" classics, what's important is that the bike fits.

With a "modern" integrated threadless design, my Masi needs more spacers under the stem to match the bar drop that my "retro mod" Falcon needs, or what the traditional quill stem sets up on my fixed.

Three different bikes but all come quite close in bar drop/reach with very different "technology".


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

Love that Falcon - Needs steel fork ha ha.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

acckids said:


> There are 55mm of spacers under that stem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares. This is a 63cm and they don't make anything bigger in my price range with a 59cm top tube. The spacers vs stem rise is relative. Some of us can't afford custom so we work around it. I'm 6'2.5" and have a 93.5cm inseam. Long legs/short torso. I need a large frame for the headtube but a smaller frame for a shorter top tube. It's a curse but I still enjoy riding. Someone telling me I need 20mm of spacers doesn't know what they are talking about.


As I said in my original post (if you read it) "Usually". Clearly there are exceptions.

The point is that if you wanted a Trek....then you will need the spacers (because many of the Treks have relativly short HT's)...but if you look around.there are very good stock frames out there with longer head tubes in a 59 CM TT.

Custom can be as cheap or cheaper than stock bikes BTW....so I don't buy the "Some can't afford custom".

The problem is that someone must have a trek Madone (or what ever model) ..........because They come with a short HT, extra spacers are required. When you pick the bike first and then make it fit, often it can end up (IMO) aesteticially less pleasing and in some cases more dangerous. I can get a Look frame to fit me...I like everything about the look brand and their bikes, but to fit my contact points, I would need (I think) 3.5 CM of spacers, so, for me, a Look frame won't meet my needs. IMO, selecting a frame involves knowing your contact points, and selecting geometry that will fit that and still look correct. Obviously YMMV.

It's great having choices.

len


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

DannyBoy said:


> Love that Falcon - Needs steel fork ha ha.


Still in the cards, but my scant resources have been redirected to the Bertoni build. Because the only things going on that Falcon if I switch it out will be a proper Reynolds fork and a Campy headset. And a Cinelli 64 bar and a 1A or 1R stem. None of which is cheap.:cryin:


----------



## jjender (Aug 3, 2007)

Try this stem position, like ex-Landy's bike...


----------



## acckids (Jan 2, 2003)

Len J, 

I have only read bits and pieces of this thread. But I did read the following: 

"Custom can be as cheap or cheaper than stock bikes BTW....so I don't buy the "Some can't afford custom".


I agree that you can buy a custom bike cheaper than stock bikes but not under $2000. Long term, I think you are better off spending the money for the custom if custom is needed which is my case. My budget dictated $1300+tax and I found the best ride in that price range. 

Looking at my checkbook the "Some can't afford custom" is reality.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

acckids said:


> Len J,
> 
> I have only read bits and pieces of this thread. But I did read the following:
> 
> ...


I could put a custom bike together for you for $2 K....I might even be able to do better than that if I worked at it.

I also, if I know your contact points can find you a used custom (with patience) for $1 K that will do what I suggested. I found a custom Serotta CSI that fit me like a glove and the total build with Chorus was under $1K.

Obviously, budget has to be kept in mind...life is about tradeoffs. But for most of the buyers that frequent this site, money is not the reason they don't go custom.

All that being said...........you are now in a position to get a custom frame and just move the parts off your current bike..........it's a reasonable upgrade.

It's great having choices

Len


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

acckids said:


> Len J,
> 
> I have only read bits and pieces of this thread. But I did read the following:
> 
> ...


http://curtlo.com/pricing.html

Fully custom, very nice ride ( I love mine)

$980 steel frame with Ouzo Pro fork. $1,210 with S3 ultralight steel frame.

Landshark - $1350 http://www.landsharkbicycles.com/order.html

Rock Lobster - $1200 and $200 more for a custom steel fork. http://www.rocklobstercycles.com/road_teamtig.php

They are out there.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

Richard said:


> Still in the cards, but my scant resources have been redirected to the Bertoni build. Because the only things going on that Falcon if I switch it out will be a proper Reynolds fork and a Campy headset. And a Cinelli 64 bar and a 1A or 1R stem. None of which is cheap.:cryin:


What size is the Falcon?

I have a fully chromed, Geoffrey Butler fork in my garage which if I remember right is for a 56 frame.


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

*I hear your pain...*



Richard said:


> Still in the cards, but my scant resources have been redirected to the Bertoni build. Because the only things going on that Falcon if I switch it out will be a proper Reynolds fork and a Campy headset. And a Cinelli 64 bar and a 1A or 1R stem. None of which is cheap.:cryin:


I'm having wedge issues that are slowing down my Tecnos project big time! A 5 week trip back to the UK from NZ with wife n two kids ain't going to help either - eek.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

jjender said:


> Try this stem position, like ex-Landy's bike...


At least his excuse is that he had a necrotic hip joint... most of us are perfectly healthy


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

*picture from the Original Poster ...*

Here's link to final pics of the assembled bike ... built with 3T stem, 100mm, pointing 6º down.
Total 30mm under stem = 20mm cone + 10mm spacer.
I'm happy with the outcome 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2130439&postcount=1


----------



## brblue (Jan 28, 2003)

here are 2 frames which in my opinion are fugly.
of course ridden to great success by their riders 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2009/probikes/?id=robert_gesink_rabobank_giant_tcr09
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2009/probikes/?id=ivan_basso_cannondale09

is it stem angle? is it the lack of spacers?
I think it's just the relation between headtube height and stem length in the first pic and headtube thickness and stem thickness in the second pic.
also the lines of the toptube, stem and top of the bars should "match" somehow.
I think the stem angle could do little about the aesthetics of these 2 bikes. however, function goes over form in these cases...


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

brblue said:


> ... function goes over form in these cases...


For sure: extreme saddle-to-bar drop, and very stretched out riding position, to produce nearly a horizontal back. What works for elite professional mid-20s cyclists, doesn't for the remaining 99.9999% of the cycling world!


----------

