# no spacer below the stem?



## PoorCyclist (Oct 14, 2010)

Is it safe to put the stem directly on top of the "dust / top cap" of the headset without any spacers?


----------



## Yamabushi (Sep 30, 2008)

PoorCyclist said:


> Is it safe to put the stem directly on top of the "dust / top cap" of the headset without any spacers?


Unless there is some specific manufacturer's recommendation against it, absolutely no problem. It's known as "slamming" the stem, and most feel it looks damn good! That being said, make sure you pay attention to fit more than looks, IMHO.


----------



## PoorCyclist (Oct 14, 2010)

Yamabushi said:


> make sure you pay attention to fit more than looks, IMHO.


This is true, I have better flexibility now that's why I want to shuffle the spacers around.


----------



## Yamabushi (Sep 30, 2008)

PoorCyclist said:


> This is true, I have better flexibility now that's why I want to shuffle the spacers around.


Sounds good, I hope it works out for you!


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

SLAM THAT STEM


----------



## T0mi (Mar 2, 2011)

PoorCyclist said:


> Is it safe to put the stem directly on top of the "dust / top cap" of the headset without any spacers?



Some, including a few pro, even remove the dust cap to allow some more slamming at the expense of bearing life.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

T0mi said:


> Some, including a few pro, even remove the dust cap to allow some more slamming at the expense of bearing life.


Why would you want to look "pro" unless you are?


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Aren't we all 'pro wannabees' ? Haven't you seen this?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

A properly fitted bike should have a proporcional long stem with no spacers under ( for a 56cm bike a 120mm stem, for a 54cm a 110mm for example )

If you need spacers there is for one of two reasons

1. the frame is too small for you. in that case your stem should be also long ( 130 and plus )
2. you haven't trained your back ( and/or reduced your gut ) to have enough flexibility


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Some manufacturers prefer you not to, e.g. Trek, as spacers allegedly provide more even pressure on the headset than stems (er... I think...).


----------



## T0mi (Mar 2, 2011)

tihsepa said:


> Why would you want to look "pro" unless you are?


Did I said the non pros were doing that to look "pro" ? no. Both do it for the fit. Mine is slammed because I choosed the appropriate frame for my fit.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> A properly fitted bike should have a proporcional long stem with no spacers under ( for a 56cm bike a 120mm stem, for a 54cm a 110mm for example )
> 
> If you need spacers there is for one of two reasons
> 
> ...


Where do you come up with this stuff?

So if the OP bought a bike with a tallish head tube, he's flexible, but if he bought a bike with a really short head tube he hasn't trained enough? The brand determines bar drop? Really?

I won't even bother with the stem length part of your post. That's just childish.


I often get the feeling that your posts are intended as some sort of entertainment, because they certainly aren't relevant to cycling.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Salsa_Lover said:


> A properly fitted bike should have a proporcional long stem with no spacers under ( for a 56cm bike a 120mm stem, for a 54cm a 110mm for example )
> 
> If you need spacers there is for one of two reasons
> 
> ...


you don't actually work in the bike business, do you? your post did provide the first WTF moment of the week for me, though.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I am talking abot a bike with standard road geometry, where you are setup balanced on the bike

Those comfort geometry bikes have a head tube that is usually too high so you can't apply the same criteria.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I am talking abot a bike with standard road geometry, where you are setup balanced on the bike
> 
> Those comfort geometry bikes have a head tube that is usually too high so you can't apply the same criteria.


A Cevelo S5 is not a comfort bike. The year is 2012, not 1982. Head tubes higher than those of 15 years ago are now the norm, and can vary considerably between brands and models. There is no "standard geometry, if there ever was.

You should try looking on the internet about bicycles and stuff. Lot's of information available about how gear systems work, bike geometry and fitting. Then you'll have some idea what you're talking about _before_ you post.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

tihsepa said:


> Why would you want to look "pro" unless you are?


Because for some people it...fits?



And as much I high-five Salsa for his arbitrary htfu slam advocacy, I don't know what he just posted. I'm open to the idea that a slammed stem works for people, but not that it's necessarily indicating best fit.


----------



## DonDenver (May 30, 2007)

salsa...I for one welcome your posts...but this stuff above I gotta think got whacked somewhere between the neocortex and the keyboard. Ah hell, just blame the keyboard and do a *reset*


----------



## mpcbike (May 12, 2009)

> A properly fitted bike should have a proporcional long stem with no spacers under ( for a 56cm bike a 120mm stem, for a 54cm a 110mm for example )
> 
> If you need spacers there is for one of two reasons
> 
> ...



No two ways about it, this has got to be in the running for "post of the year", absolutely AWSOME!!!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, my post comes from my own experience fitting and riding many frame sizes and stem lengths and heights combinations and at the same time going through a process of training myself to have a better position on the bike.

Add to that my activity of hobby bike builder where I had built and sold some 40 racing bikes and helped many of the buyers to get an optimal fit and improve their own position on the bike.

I had found that ( for me as an example ) the best fit on a bike for all positions, that includes, a cruising on the bends, a flat back or descending on the hooks, a climbing on the saddle ob the tops and off the saddle on the hoods and sprinting on the drops is with a 56cm (55cc) frame with a 120mm stem, that gives a 55cm saddle handlebars and 55cm front hub handlebars setup.

On a Colnago C50 or equivalent racing bike the setup is exactly with a -6 degree stem without spacers.

I can get the same setup on a 54cm frame with 130mm stem but I am then too forward, or the same with a 58cm 110 stem -17 but I am too on the rear, I had experimented with a 57cm, 59cm, 55cm and different stem lengths and heights combinations but even if one position could be right the others were slightly off.

The 56cm/120mm or equivalent 52s/120mm is the optimal.

Proportionally a smaller frame would need a shorter stem and viceversa, as I have read on some fitting articles.

And well there is too the rider's fitness level to adopt himself the best position ( that comes with training ) instead of the reverse approach that is to adapt the bike to the lower level of fitness of the rider with comfort geometries or stacks of spacers and short stems.

HTH, I am just giving my own experience and findings here, not a theoretical dissertation on fitting or frame design or market trends.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Well, my post comes from my own experience fitting and riding many frame sizes and stem lengths and heights combinations and at the same time going through a process of training myself to have a better position on the bike.
> 
> Add to that my activity of hobby bike builder where I had built and sold some 40 racing bikes and helped many of the buyers to get an optimal fit and improve their own position on the bike.
> 
> ...


This isn't theoretical, it is incredibly practical. I don't know what sort of fit articles you could possibly be reading: Between sizes 48 and 62 you'd need to have 8 different stem lengths - do you really think all short people are riding 80mm stems and all tall people use 150s? That's patently absurd. Stems come in increments smaller than top tube increments because people's backs, arms, legs and everything else come in increments a lot smaller than that.

And it's funny you mention Colnago - a company that has a sizing and fit policy that specifically calls for longer than "normal" stems. Or did you miss that article?

The only thing that is consistent is your attitude that bikes should look a certain way and human beings should train, bend, stretch, "HTFU" or whatever to suit their bike. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gearing, sizing, whatever - same baloney.

Why not just claim that everyone should be riding a bike identical to yours; a 56cm with a 120mm stem? Anyone who doesn't fit that can HTFU and either grow or shrink until they fit your incredibly skewed perception of what a bicycle is supposed to be.


The main thing I get from reading your last post is that there are 40 people riding around on bicycles fit by a guy who reads imaginary articles and is more concerned with aesthetics than power, efficiency or comfort. Poor souls. 

Luckily, people around here stopped taking your posts seriously quite awhile ago.


----------



## robc in wi (Sep 8, 2011)

Your sizing theory might work for those with perfect proportions but for someone like me who is 5'7" with a 32" inseam and rides 53-54cm bikes I would have to be a gymnist to ride slammed with a 110mm stem. One size doesn't fit all when it comes to bikes and their riders.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

A good way of looking at this:
PEDALARE verso il CIELO: Consigli Utili


----------



## NEO Dan (Jun 10, 2010)

robc in wi said:


> Your sizing theory might work for those with perfect proportions but for someone like me who is 5'7" with a 32" inseam and rides 53-54cm bikes I would have to be a gymnist to ride slammed with a 110mm stem. One size doesn't fit all when it comes to bikes and their riders.


I have a 40mm stem you might want - don't forget to slam it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

It is also not the first time I see you posting agressive and condescending opinions. distorting what I said.

But a bit of reading comprehension training would be good for you.

On my post I am talking about *optimal* fit. And that is from a practical and not theoretical point of view. And off course for somebody with normal proportions.

After you apply your fitting method, whatever it would be, because there are many and they present various and sometimes contradicting criteria, but let's say you did your measurements and calculations and what not, and found your fitting parameters. And let's put in the mix the goal of your fitting ( comfort, performance, improvement or whatever )

You can get the *same fit* with many differente frame/stem/spacers/handlebar combinations.

This is what I did, experimenting with positioning and fitting on many frames ( 53,54,55,56,57,58,59, sloping and traditional and stems from 90 to 140 ) and I found the optimal fit is when the bike is balanced. So it places me in the right place on the bike for different riding positions. adding to that my own training to be more flexible and fit and to place me on the right position on the bike that fits me.

I found that was a 56cm frame with a 120mm stem with no spacers.

I could set me up on a 54/130 but I would need spacers under the stem and the handling not so great sitting on the back of the saddle when on the hoods
I could set me up on a 59/100 but I would be too high and the bike would not handle well off the saddle
I could set me up on a 58/110 etc etc. etc. but they would not be optimal.

That is the point.

If I was on a 56 but with a stack of spacers and short stem, that would point to not be fit enough and/or looking for too much comfort, the bike wouldn't handle the best for me.
If I was on a 53 with same fit, that would need a stack of spacers and a very long stem, but that would point to the frame being too small.

And I have an anecdote to tell you, 

When I started the sport I was fitted and go my first advice about how to position/ride/train, from a retired Pro who had won the Tour de Suisse and had done well in the Giro etc.
He set me up on a 56cm with 120mm stem and no spacers, the fork was cut to size so there was no posibility to make it higher, it had a standard 53/39 with a 12-25
I had a hard time to ride that bike, it was too low for me and the gearing was good only for flat riding, I could not climb on that bike.
I asked him to help me to switch to a short upright stem and a triple. he joked, mocking me and told me that I would look like a post delivery guy on his mobilette with that, and that I should only look for a triple when I was on my 60s.
Well then, I tried according to your words to force me to fit the bike and after some time I gave up with that bike.

Coinciding with my move to the other end of the country, I sold the bike and got me a larger frame, I switched rode a 58 with a 110. stem and 3cm spacers, put a triple on it. I was even contemplating to switch to a 100mm stem. I was allways on the tops or hoods and rarely on the drops.
Well, after almost two seasons on that bike that was indeed comfortable. I started to train harder and remembered and followed all the advice I got from him that inicially I rejected.
I trained my sitting position, my back flexibility, and climbing, and well the bike was starting to be too high and big for me., the granny ring was never needed to be used so I started doing my frame and stem experimentations which was made possible because of this hobby building where I had so many frames and part to experiment.

After that I found to my surprise that the optimal fit was exactly what that guy had sized me up from the beginning 56cm with slammed 120mm stem and an standard gearing.

It took some years of digesting the advice, training, improving my fitness , but I came to realise that what that guy saw that was my optimal fit, the right thing. I just had to follow his advice about sitting, eating, training and HTFUing.

So well that is where all this comes from.

For sure somebody with non standard measurents would benefit of a custom frame or some extreme stem/frame combination that doesn't match what I am saying.
Also somebody who is not in the best fitness would find difficult to place himself on the right position on the bike, but this is something you can solve by training.
Or some could prefer a comfort fit, so then this doesn't apply too.

But I do believe that a rider can with good training and discipline to get optimal fit on a bike without the need of stacks of spacers and short upside down stems.





Kontact said:


> This isn't theoretical, it is incredibly practical. I don't know what sort of fit articles you could possibly be reading: Between sizes 48 and 62 you'd need to have 8 different stem lengths - do you really think all short people are riding 80mm stems and all tall people use 150s? That's patently absurd. Stems come in increments smaller than top tube increments because people's backs, arms, legs and everything else come in increments a lot smaller than that.
> 
> And it's funny you mention Colnago - a company that has a sizing and fit policy that specifically calls for longer than "normal" stems. Or did you miss that article?
> 
> ...


----------



## NEO Dan (Jun 10, 2010)

Who's thread is this again?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> It is also not the first time I see you posting agressive and condescending opinions. distorting what I said.
> 
> But a bit of reading comprehension training would be good for you.
> 
> ...


All of that misses the fact that the rest of your suggestions would place a small riders with a super short stem, and a tall rider with a 140mm stem.

Someone short or tall, if they have "standard" measurements, will also be using a 100-120mm stem as well, throughout the size range. The top tubes on the different frame sizes are already proportional to make the starting stem size always right in the middle. If a 48cm rider started with a 80mm stem, they would have no where to go if they required shorter.

Your point about spacers is the same way. Road bikes of today might vary by as much as* 6cm* in the head tube of a 55cm TT frame. How is telling someone to slam their stem for best drop useful given that fact? Even in the old days, a 55cm TT bike could easily vary by 3cm of head tube. My bikes, which are 50 or 51cm frames, have TT variations of 2.5cm between them. How could I possibly use the same stem length on all of them?

I have no doubt _you_ like the way your bike fits _you_ and is geared for _you_ and where_ you_ live. But the lessons you seem to draw from your experience sitting on _your_ middle sized traditional bicycles have almost no application in the broader sense.

I apologize if my tone is insulting: I just find the kind of advice you _always_ dole out to be strangely elitist and really ill-informed, yet stated with absolute certainty. You are also frequently condescending, so I am not particularly concerned about insulting your sensibilities. Sure, people can adapt to more aggressive positions, but telling someone on a 60cm bike to start by slamming a 140mm stem and ride it until it fits makes zero sense. The position that person would end up with would bear little resemblance to your position. I sincerely doubt you would have posted what you did if you weren't right in the middle of the bicycle size range and male height.

I'm not interested in winning an argument - I just don't want the casual reader to gather what you have to say on the subject and act on it, because it is terrible advice that can cause pain and injury if taken at face value.


----------



## NEO Dan (Jun 10, 2010)

saddles = stems; one size does not fit all.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> All of that misses the fact that the rest of your suggestions would place a small riders with a super short stem, and a tall rider with a 140mm stem.
> 
> Someone short or tall, if they have "standard" measurements, will also be using a 100-120mm stem as well, throughout the size range. The top tubes on the different frame sizes are already proportional to make the starting stem size always right in the middle. If a 48cm rider started with a 80mm stem, they would have no where to go if they required shorter.
> 
> ...


fair enough, I agree with your points too and apologyse for what is worth. 

It is clear that for the extremes of the range or for odd body proportions you have to apply a more specific criteria and surely there is a wide range of frame geometries being offered to the public with different uses in mind which would need other configurations. I had in mind balanced fit on classic or standard racing geometries.

I am quite old-school BTW as you see, and well, I have learned my way into things by trial and error methods, with a dose of though love from my teachers and mentors, and so I do with my friends and riding partners, and here in a mix of semi-trolling fun and real advice based on own experience through my laziness/missconceptions/errors and final discoveries that what those old guys said was actually right.

Also I do agree that while you should push yourself to improve it should not be excessive to cause injury, but instead progresively pushing the envelope. but at the same time for sure a good dose of HTFU cure everything caused by laziness or demotivation or fear of pushing yourself to improve.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> fair enough, I agree with your points too and apologyse for what is worth.
> 
> It is clear that for the extremes of the range or for odd body proportions you have to apply a more specific criteria and surely there is a wide range of frame geometries being offered to the public with different uses in mind which would need other configurations. I had in mind balanced fit on classic or standard racing geometries.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from.


----------



## potholered70 (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm 53 years old, 5 foot 7 with a 31inch inseam and my bikes are 52-54cm. Looks like I'm in the same boat but maybe worse off.


----------

