# Is a stem spacer required



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

Working on fitting a 1 to 2 cm too large frame to me (56 instead of a 54). Is a spacer required between the headset topcap and the bottom of the stem?? I need to drop the bars a little more.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

cpcritter said:


> Working on fitting a 1 to 2 cm too large frame to me (56 instead of a 54). Is a spacer required between the headset topcap and the bottom of the stem?? I need to drop the bars a little more.


I think what you're really asking is if a spacer is needed between the bottom of stem and conical (headset) spacer. If so, the answer is no.

Top caps sit atop the stem and are used to preload the hs bearings.


----------



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

Yep, that was the question. Thanks.
I apologize for not using the correct terminology.

While I am at it, does a 10* drop stem look weird on current sloped top tube frames?


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

After fit it is just a personal preference. For a while I thought a stem angle of 0 degrees looked best, until I saw one on a sloping top tube frame. The best look for a sloping top tube frame is to follow its angle closely and use a stem that continues its angle upward slightly, IMO.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

I agree that having a stem that is close to parallel to the top tube is most aesthetically pleasing. For a traditional geometry with a flat top tube you need about -15 to -18 degrees. For a compact geometry about -7 to -8 degrees seems to match, but -10 degrees would be close enough IMHO. But getting the right fit is more important than any of this of course.


----------



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

The issue is that I am trying duplicate my current bike measurements and the bottom of the stem measures about 1.5 inches higher on the SL3 than my ole Litespeed traditional flat top tube design.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Then just do the right thing to make it fit. It isn't going to look bad. Based on the numbers I don't think your Litespeed could have had the "optimal stem", aesthetically speaking, either. The longer head tube on the modern compact bikes is more in line with most rider's real requirements for drop, and is a good thing IMHO.


----------



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

ukbloke said:


> I don't think your Litespeed could have had the "optimal stem", aesthetically speaking, either.


My litespeed looked best with the Litespeed stem (I believe 10*) and parallel to the top tube. I now have a 6* and it looks ok but the fit dead on and I can use new compact bars.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

cpcritter said:


> My litespeed looked best with the Litespeed stem (I believe 10*) and parallel to the top tube.


For all this to be true your Litespeed would have needed an 80 degree HT angle! It reinforces the point that a few degrees here or there doesn't really matter.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

cpcritter said:


> The issue is that I am trying duplicate my current bike measurements and *the bottom of the stem measures about 1.5 inches higher on the SL3 than my ole Litespeed *traditional flat top tube design.


Speaking from experience, be careful when segregating out the rest of a bikes geo and just measuring from point A to point B on two bikes to make a comparison on bar height. I'm not suggesting that you don't have it right, but there are pitfalls to be aware of - in this case, differences in frame stack. 

If you measure from the bottom of the HT (below the lower cup if non-integrated) to top of stem on your current bike, it'll get you a baseline to shoot for on the SL3, but the results will only be close because stem angle isn't considered. Alternately (or as a double check), you could measure the Litespeed's saddle to bar drop, then see if/ how it can be duplicated on the SL3. Saddle height is a constant, so you could experiment with spacer/ stem combos to get close to the Litespeed.

The link below is mostly useful when all else is equal and changes to stem length/ angle and spacers need to be calculated, but it may be of some use to you.
http://alex.phred.org/stemchart/Default.aspx


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

ukbloke said:


> For all this to be true your Litespeed would have needed an 80 degree HT angle! It reinforces the point that a few degrees here or there doesn't really matter.


No, he said parallel to the top tube not the ground. A 10 degree stem runs very close to parallel to the top tube of slightly sloping top tube frames. I would say a 6 degree stem would be noticeably pointed upward.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Vee said:


> No, he said parallel to the top tube not the ground. A 10 degree stem runs very close to parallel to the top tube of slightly sloping top tube frames. I would say a 6 degree stem would be noticeably pointed upward.


With a stem of 'moderate' length (110) and a 73* HTA, the difference between a 10* and 6* stem is about 8mm. If studied it may be noticable, but not by much, IMO/E.


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> With a stem of 'moderate' length (110) and a 73* HTA, the difference between a 10* and 6* stem is about 8mm. If studied it may be noticable, but not by much, IMO.


73 degree TT FM015.

6 Degree Stem (110mm)









10 Degree Stem (140mm)









To me that difference is very noticeable. To each his own...


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Vee said:


> No, he said parallel to the top tube not the ground. A 10 degree stem runs very close to parallel to the top tube of slightly sloping top tube frames. I would say a 6 degree stem would be noticeably pointed upward.


And he said the top tube was "flat" which I took as meaning parallel with the ground:



> than my ole Litespeed traditional flat top tube design.


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

ukbloke said:


> And he said the top tube was "flat" which I took as meaning parallel with the ground:


oops. sorry.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Vee said:


> To each his own...


Indeed...

Keep in mind that camera angles play a major role on perceptions and comparing a 110mm stem to a 140 isn't quite apples to apples.

I think an 'in person' direct comparison would yield different results, but even at that, I don't see much difference between your two pics.


----------



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

I didn't mean to start a huge debate on a simple question. I am just trying to get my fit of a 56cm SL3 to within about a cm of my current 54cm Litespeed without the bike looking like I "shoe horned" it. Currently dialing in the reach and drop.

This is the first new style frame that has a taller HT and a sloping TT that I have ever had. Currently with a 110x6* stem and no spacers I am only about 1 to 2cm high. I can live with that...but a 10* should, in my estimation, dial the fit to within 1cm. Since the fit of my Litespeed is perfect and has not been changed for many years I would like to stay close with the SL3. Still, I want the bike to look right. Example: it was important for me to have the graphics on the seat post show completely after I had adjusted the height...and and it easily does.

Again, I know I should ride a 54 SL3 but the the deal I got would make you all pass-out. I know I almost passed out.


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

cpcritter said:


> I didn't mean to start a huge debate on a simple question. I am just trying to get my fit of a 56cm SL3 to within about a cm of my current 54cm Litespeed without the bike looking like I "shoe horned" it. Currently dialing in the reach and drop.
> 
> This is the first new style frame that has a taller HT and a sloping TT that I have ever had. Currently with a 110x6* stem and no spacers I am only about 1 to 2cm high. I can live with that...but a 10* should, in my estimation, dial the fit to within 1cm. Since the fit of my Litespeed is perfect and has not been changed for many years I would like to stay close with the SL3. Still, I want the bike to look right. Example: it was important for me to have the graphics on the seat post show completely after I had adjusted the height...and and it easily does.
> 
> Again, I know I should ride a 54 SL3 but the the deal I got would make you all pass-out. I know I almost passed out.


I used the Bike Stem Calculator at Brightspoke and got these numbers when comparing your two stems you discuss above. The numbers on the left of "vs." are for a 6* 110mm stem. The numbers on the right of "vs." are for a 10* 110mm stem.:


Stem Angle: 10.5° vs. 6.5°

Difference of: 4.0°


Stem Height: 20.0 mm vs. 12.5 mm

Difference of: 7.6 mm


Stem Reach: 108.2 mm vs. 109.3 mm

Difference of: -1.1 mm 


Looks like that could do it for you.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

cpcritter said:


> *I didn't mean to start a huge debate on a simple question. * I am just trying to get my fit of a 56cm SL3 to within about a cm of my current 54cm Litespeed without the bike looking like I "shoe horned" it. Currently dialing in the reach and drop.
> 
> This is the first new style frame that has a taller HT and a sloping TT that I have ever had. Currently with a 110x6* stem and no spacers I am only about 1 to 2cm high. I can live with that...but a 10* should, in my estimation, dial the fit to within 1cm. Since the fit of my Litespeed is perfect and has not been changed for many years I would like to stay close with the SL3. Still, I want the bike to look right. Example: it was important for me to have the graphics on the seat post show completely after I had adjusted the height...and and it easily does.
> 
> Again, I know I should ride a 54 SL3 but the the deal I got would make you all pass-out. I know I almost passed out.


Don't fret over it. It's part of what a forum is all about - sharing thoughts/ opinions. 

As far as the 110mm 6* versus 110mm 10* stem is concerned, use the stem chart I linked to in the other post to double check your estimates, but I think you're close. Just keep in mind that as you drop your bars, reach is extended as well, but the chart calculates that as well.


----------



## Vee (Jun 17, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Don't fret over it. It's part of what a forum is all about - sharing thoughts/ opinions.
> 
> As far as the 110mm 6* versus 110mm 10* stem is concerned, use the stem chart I linked to in the other post to double check your estimates, but I think you're close. Just keep in mind that as you drop your bars, reach is extended as well, but the chart calculates that as well.


Precisely. Was going to correct you, but I was wrong. Need my morning caffeine


----------



## cpcritter (Sep 24, 2008)

Exactly the information that I needed. I didn't know a stem chart even existed...Thank you!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

cpcritter said:


> Exactly the information that I needed. I didn't know a stem chart even existed...Thank you!


In case you're unaware of this option, Spec offers conical spacers of differing heights, so depending on what's on the SL3 now, they may offer another option for lowering the bars.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=57224


----------

