# Shorter stem on a road bike



## ejewels

Hey Guys,

I got a professional fit for 2.5 hours yesterday at my LBS. The guy used Trek precision fit along with a mix of serotta and other fitting techniques/theories. I am coming off a neck injury, so it was important for me to be a little more upright and comfortable getting back into the game.

After all was said and done, I most closely matched with a 56 Domane but with a 80mm stem. It was Trek's closest match mathematically as well as my fitter. If I went 54 it had me on a 90mm stem, however the 56 required less fit modification overall and gave me more options to tweak for fitting purposes and future growth, like getting more fit and wanting to get lower/more aero.

My question is, how many of you run a shorter stem on your road bike? I've always used 100+ stems but was never professionally fitted until yesterday.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

I'm going to guess they have a 56 in stock they want to get rid of and not a 54.

It's somewhere counter intuitive but actually the 54 is the one that allows for a more aggressive position in the future because the headtube is 1.5 cm shorter. And the reach is only .3 cm shorter so pretty much insignificant.

An 80 stem is too short and it's simply wrong that that the 56 will allow you to get more aggressive in the future as compared to the 54.


----------



## pmf

I hope you didn't pay them money for that "fit". That shop owes you 2.5 hours of your life. An 8 cm stem is incredibly short and is going to result in twitchy handling. And how does going down to a 54 cm only increase the stem length by one cm? Have you considered the angle of the stem? That would be a way to get you more upright, yet easily changed to more aggressive (flipping it, or going with a stem with less angle) fit later on. Or what about those upright type "comfort bikes" like a Specialized Roubaix? Just suggestions -- and I've never owned a Trek os Specialized bike, so I'm no expert on either. 

You really ought to check out another bike shop.


----------



## cdhbrad

The goal I shoot for is a frame fit using a 110mm stem (I think that was Eddy Merckx's standard too so who am I to question that) and the shortest I have is a 100. As others have commented, sounds like the Shop is trying to "fit" you to what they have in stock and not what you really need. 

If you can only go to a 90mm on a 54, you may actually need a smaller frame than a 54.


----------



## ejewels

So let me get this straight. I should go and tell this professional fitter, who has been doing this for 25 years and holds many certs and is highly regarded in the state as one of the best, that he's wrong? And that people on the internet are telling me what fits without knowing my proportions?

Let me clarify a few things. He had both sizes in the shop and is a big Trek and Giant dealer with lots of stock and options. Its a brand new '17, so not old stock. Even if you go by the trek size chart (which you shouldn't really) I'm a 56.

Also, what he said was that the 56 allowed more fitting options and required less modification than the 54 would have. The 54 would have worked, but I'd need to max out the risers and the saddle to bar drop was too great as I have long legs. So not only would i need a new stem still, it wouldn't help with my neck issues as the stack would be too low.

Just looking to see peoples experiences with an 80 mm stem. So far its "too short" but I've been reading around and it seems the "too twitchy" thing is a myth. And many seem to run them.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Stem length and how it affects handling depends on things like head tube angle and fork rake and all sorts of things I don't understand. I haven't really tried. I have a few lengths of the same stem, so when I build up a new frame I take a rough guess and then adjust from there. I'm usually pretty close.

I've seen some pretty short stems on H2 Treks (down to 70mm on a 56cm frame), at least shorter than I would run. I usually run a 100mm on 56cm H1 Madone (haven't built up a H2 yet), and most 56cm frames are similar for me. If I go down to a 55cm or 54cm frame, I go up to a 110mm stem (depending on the fit goals). That's me, and your fit goals are completely different.

What I would do is see if they have a 54cm and 56cm in stock and test ride both with their suggested stem lengths. If not the same bike, one with a similar geometry. See what works for you. Without seeing you on the bike, that's about the best advice I can give you.


----------



## ejewels

I think I probably should have stated that I'm not going for a race fit, smaller bike, etc. I WANT a larger, stable endurance fit for my neck issues. The stem length was basically due to me constantly saying "this feels better" when we were on the reach part of the fit. He even expected me to be on a longer stem. I think going on the shorter stem was more likely a result of my flexibility and comfort now, which I hope will change.


----------



## dir-t

ejewels said:


> So let me get this straight. I should go and tell this professional fitter, who has been doing this for 25 years and holds many certs and is highly regarded in the state as one of the best, that he's wrong? And that people on the internet are telling me what fits without knowing my proportions?


You came here with the question.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

ejewels said:


> So let me get this straight. I should go and tell this professional fitter, who has been doing this for 25 years and holds many certs and is highly regarded in the state as one of the best, that he's wrong? And that people on the internet are telling me what fits without knowing my proportions?


You can do whatever you want with the information you get here. If all you want is confirmation though you need to understand people might give honest answers and not just say what you want to hear. You'll have to decide for yourself is you want to listen or not.


----------



## factory feel

The shop is trying to get rid of an old stock 80mm stem.

beware op


----------



## JCavilia

I have bikes with stems of 120 mm and 80 mm, chosen to adjust for different top tube lengths. The difference in handling from the stem length difference is subtle, small, and easy to adjust to almost instantly. It has far less effect than the real steering geometry parameters (head angle, rake, trail, etc.) There is zero "twitchiness" associated with the shorter stem, IME. I think people are overstating the "problem," based on my own experience.


----------



## ejewels

And I asked those questions back.


----------



## pmf

ejewels said:


> So let me get this straight. I should go and tell this professional fitter, who has been doing this for 25 years and holds many certs and is highly regarded in the state as one of the best, that he's wrong? And that people on the internet are telling me what fits without knowing my proportions?.


OK, so let me get this straight -- you have the best professional fitter in the entire state (hopefully a really big state like California), who has been doing this for a billion years, and you question his advice by posting the results to a bunch of dumbasses on the internet?

If you keep saying 'that feels better' every time he shortens the stem, then guess what -- you'll end up with a short stem. Some free advice -- have you considered a 58 cm frame with a 7 cm stem? At any rate, keep us posted if you find anyone who actually has a bike with an 8 cm stem.


----------



## arai_speed

I have 2 road bikes.

A 56cm with a 110mm stem and a 58cm with an 80mm stem.

I have experienced _no ill effect_ w/the the 80mm stem. Group rides, twisty canyon descents, etc.

Good luck!


----------



## ejewels

Jay Strongbow said:


> You can do whatever you want with the information you get here. If all you want is confirmation though you need to understand people might give honest answers and not just say what you want to hear. You'll have to decide for yourself is you want to listen or not.


Honest answers by who though, thats the question. Pro bike fitters? You're right, I don't want to hear assumption-fueled answers by people that don't know my proportions or body dynamics. Is that wrong? I also don't mean to sound confrontational. I just really want to see people's views on running a shorter stem.


----------



## ejewels

pmf said:


> OK, so let me get this straight -- you have the best professional fitter in the entire state (hopefully a really big state like California), who has been doing this for a billion years, and you question his advice by posting the results to a bunch of dumbasses on the internet?
> 
> If you keep saying 'that feels better' every time he shortens the stem, then guess what -- you'll end up with a short stem. Some free advice -- have you considered a 58 cm frame with a 7 cm stem? At any rate, keep us posted if you find anyone who actually has a bike with an 8 cm stem.


Looks like 2 posters already said they use a 80. What are your credentials to be telling me for sure an 80 is too short and my bike is way too big without knowing my body dynamics, flexibility, proportions or merely anything about my experience?

I'm not trying to argue with you and I appreciate any feedback. However being told I may need a 52, that no one runs a 80mm stem and that I got "had" by a reputable shop seems a bit much no? Especially without me ever posting my stats?


----------



## ejewels

> I have 2 road bikes.





> A 56cm with a 110mm stem and a 58cm with an 80mm stem.
> 
> I have experienced _no ill effect w/the the 80mm stem. Group rides, twisty canyon descents, etc.
> 
> Good luck!_


_

_Thanks. Thats reassuring.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Here's the deal, you currently have a "Fred" setup, and that's what people are griping about.

You currently have a very high and short stem to deal with whatever issues you have, and it's not the way things are done. The setup you have is not correct, it's not normal, it's not as the manufacturers intended, and people are letting you know that. Would you put a 6" steering wheel on your car? Your setup is wrong/not ideal/Fred because of your injury or medical condition or whatever it is.

So they're right. An 80mm stem on a 56cm frame is wrong, it doesn't belong there, the company never designed that bike that way, and all those spacers shouldn't be under the stem either. But alas, you're not normal, you're injured or recovering or whatever is going on.

So for now ignore people here, as you aren't normal. Once you get riding and get putting some miles in, you'll feel it quickly. You will want your stem lower, you will want it longer, it will cause you problems as is.

You may think that bunching up your spine is the best thing to do for comfort, but you're wrong, it's the other way around. 

And you can't expect the fitter to do what's right for you when you're in there complaining about pain or injuries or whatever in your neck. He'll try to get you comfortable on your bike, and then FOR FREE, he will adjust your position later/over time as you become more flexible and as your current incorrect position starts to hurt.


----------



## kbwh

JCavilia said:


> I have bikes with stems of 120 mm and 80 mm, chosen to adjust for different top tube lengths. The difference in handling from the stem length difference is subtle, small, and easy to adjust to almost instantly. It has far less effect than the real steering geometry parameters (head angle, rake, trail, etc.) There is zero "twitchiness" associated with the shorter stem, IME. I think people are overstating the "problem," based on my own experience.


This. An 8 cm stem on a 56 is _​unproblematic._
Also: Nobody mentions bar reach in these discussions. Ever. Until I do.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

All my bikes have 140mm, or 135mm stems. I tried a 130 on one, but had to change it to a 140, to be more comfortable.


----------



## ejewels

MMsRepBike said:


> Here's the deal, you currently have a "Fred" setup, and that's what people are griping about.
> 
> You currently have a very high and short stem to deal with whatever issues you have, and it's not the way things are done. The setup you have is not correct, it's not normal, it's not as the manufacturers intended, and people are letting you know that. Would you put a 6" steering wheel on your car? Your setup is wrong/not ideal/Fred because of your injury or medical condition or whatever it is.
> 
> So they're right. An 80mm stem on a 56cm frame is wrong, it doesn't belong there, the company never designed that bike that way, and all those spacers shouldn't be under the stem either. But alas, you're not normal, you're injured or recovering or whatever is going on.
> 
> So for now ignore people here, as you aren't normal. Once you get riding and get putting some miles in, you'll feel it quickly. You will want your stem lower, you will want it longer, it will cause you problems as is.
> 
> You may think that bunching up your spine is the best thing to do for comfort, but you're wrong, it's the other way around.
> 
> And you can't expect the fitter to do what's right for you when you're in there complaining about pain or injuries or whatever in your neck. He'll try to get you comfortable on your bike, and then FOR FREE, he will adjust your position later/over time as you become more flexible and as your current incorrect position starts to hurt.


Thanks. I think you're right here. I complained a lot about my neck issue so that may have swayed him. Also, not being flexible and out of shape only lets me lean over so far and feeling comfortable, so I'd imagine that has a lot to do with it. Guess my question is how much will the 80mm stem affect the ride/geo compared to the stock 100. I ended up sending him an email asking more about the stem setup and his thoughts. Will report back.

For saying its completely wrong and not how Trek intended it may be right. BUT, I will say that it was the Trek precision fit system that suggested it once the fitter put in all the numbers/notes. Basically you do the fit session and after inputting it all into the system, it outputs a bunch of bikes/sizes/combos. The Domane 56 with the 80mm stem was at the top of the list (top is the best match). As you went down the list the size 54 showed up and then a Giant Defy. So if Trek is suggesting swapping the stem I'd say it can't be THAT big of a deal.


----------



## duriel

Ahhh baloney! I am running a 50cm stem on my road bike, just cant reach like I used too. 
The bike handles fine, I can't tell the difference. 
Now some are saying they don't have a bike in the shop that will fit you and they are trying to shoehorn you into that frame size. That may be true.

Bigger frames are better for people who have back issues as it minimizes the drop from seat to HB. Another option is to use a 17degree stem and turn it up.


----------



## ejewels

duriel said:


> Ahhh baloney! I am running a 50cm stem on my road bike, just cant reach like I used too.
> The bike handles fine, I can't tell the difference.
> Now some are saying they don't have a bike in the shop that will fit you and they are trying to shoehorn you into that frame size. That may be true.
> 
> Bigger frames are better for people who have back issues as it minimizes the drop from seat to HB. Another option is to use a 17degree stem and turn it up.


I went in for a fit first and foremost, with the disclaimer that I'm looking at a Domane or an Emonda. He also had 54s and 56s in stock so trying to shoehorn me definitely isn't the case.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

kbwh said:


> This. An 8 cm stem on a 56 is _​unproblematic._
> Also: Nobody mentions bar reach in these discussions. Ever. Until I do.


No one mentioned bar reach because it's a constant in this particular situation so not relevant at all.


----------



## cdhbrad

The bottom line is this: It will be your bike and no one who is responding to your posts can possibly know how the bike feels to you. We can all tell you our personal preferences and they are only that: personal preferences. 

Stems are relatively cheap, $50 will get you a really good one off eBay, compared to every other component on your bike, other than expendables like tires, tubes, etc. Buy whatever YOU want based on how the bikes you are being offered feel to you and, if it doesn't suit you later, buy a different length stem until you are satisfied.


----------



## Jno

I was between sizes on my road bike: some shops said 55, some said 57. I had a proper fitting (computer) and two different "eyeball" fittings (dimensions taken, but not computerized trek precision fit). Each fitter was completely confident. They didn't agree. I got the 57 but with the shorter stem (90) as it felt better, and had the endorsement of the one fitter. He had to order the bike and the stem so was not motivated by desire to sell off old stock. I like the results and have no doubts the shorter stem was the right choice. Neither did the fitter, who knows much more than I do.


----------



## SauronHimself

If you're used to 100m+ stems, going to a 90mm or an 80mm will make your steering noticeably twitchy. Go with the smallest frame size you can that gets your stem the closest length to which you're accustomed.


----------



## pmf

ejewels said:


> What are your credentials


Hey pal, I got 3990 poasts on rodebikereview.com


----------



## Jay Strongbow

One man's twitchy is another's more responsive. The key is what MMsRepBike said, not as the maker intended (or however he put it).

You may even like the quicker handling more than what the maker intended it to be. Who knows. The point is it's a compromise. Give your situation it may be the best compromise available. I don't know. But an 80 stem on a 56 bike is indicative of a less than ideal frame size and when spending thousands I'd prefer ideal and I think suggesting ideal is the motive for those of use not kissing your fitters feet and saying it's a great idea. Maybe ideal isn't possible for you but I'd still suspect the fitter is making the best of what they have in stock when looking at other brands or custom might be better.


----------



## MMsRepBike

ejewels said:


> Thanks. I think you're right here. I complained a lot about my neck issue so that may have swayed him. Also, not being flexible and out of shape only lets me lean over so far and feeling comfortable, so I'd imagine that has a lot to do with it. Guess my question is how much will the 80mm stem affect the ride/geo compared to the stock 100. I ended up sending him an email asking more about the stem setup and his thoughts. Will report back.
> 
> For saying its completely wrong and not how Trek intended it may be right. BUT, I will say that it was the Trek precision fit system that suggested it once the fitter put in all the numbers/notes. Basically you do the fit session and after inputting it all into the system, it outputs a bunch of bikes/sizes/combos. The Domane 56 with the 80mm stem was at the top of the list (top is the best match). As you went down the list the size 54 showed up and then a Giant Defy. So if Trek is suggesting swapping the stem I'd say it can't be THAT big of a deal.


That fit system, the Retul fit system and the rest like it are proven to fit you in an upright position. This is fine if your rides are all 20 miles or less. Fizik did a long study in the US with a university here and proved this point. Self fit people and pros were close to one another and fit with longer and lower stems. All of these fit systems fit people with shorter and higher stems.

As for the stem being a problem. Just think of it like this: Your car's steering wheel is like 14" in diameter. Swap it out for a steering wheel that's 10" in a diameter, put a little tiny wheel on. It'll still work fine. It'll turn quicker, each little input you put into the wheel will turn the wheels more, it'll be more responsive. Racing cars have small steering wheels for this reason. So by definition it will make your handling more twitchy as they call it, or precise maybe, or faster, however you want to say it. A long stem is like a big steering wheel, like a bus. Slower, more stable, more input needed to turn. So a 80mm stem is fine, but it's not ideal.

You'll be fine, you have to be comfortable, that's not a debate. So ride it until it's not comfortable anymore, it'll happen. It will hurt your back as is on longer rides. Once you start doing longer rides, go back in for a refit and I bet you'll come out of it with a lower and longer stem.


----------



## marathonrunner

My best friend is an employee at a local Trek retailer who uses the same system the OP was fit on. Said retailer does tend to put every amateur rider in a similar position-raise the bars, shorten the reach. 

This is a band-aid and short-term fix. What you must eventually do is strengthen your back and core muscles to get your spine in the right position so your legs have something to push against.

Since bikes were not designed with high rise short stems in mind, the bike will not handle well with an 80 or 90mm stem. Good luck climbing out of the saddle. I once ran a 90mm stem, and the bike handled like crap; it didn't fit me, so I eventually sold it and bought a bike that fits properly. Try switching out a bunch of different stems on a bike and feel the handling difference-it is major. I can tell the difference immediately between a 110 and a 120.


----------



## Migen21

An 80mm stem will handle just fine. I think the biggest concern is if you decide at some point in the future that you need to shorten it up. You don't have a lot of room in that direction.

If you are on 80mm stem as a starting point with the expectation that as your neck situation improves you may extend it, you are fine


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## arai_speed

marathonrunner said:


> ... the bike will not handle well with an 80 or 90mm stem....


#alternativefacts


----------



## kbwh

MMsRepBike said:


> That fit system, the Retul fit system and the rest like it are proven to fit you in an upright position. This is fine if your rides are all 20 miles or less. Fizik did a long study in the US with a university here and proved this point. Self fit people and pros were close to one another and fit with longer and lower stems. All of these fit systems fit people with shorter and higher stems.


Interesting. Where do I read the study?


----------



## MMsRepBike

kbwh said:


> Interesting. Where do I read the study?


It's a very interesting study indeed. They were testing pressure on the saddle, stem, bottom bracket, etc. Not to promote anything, just to learn.

Locomotion Laboratory | Integrative Physiology | CU-Boulder

That's the university, that's the specific department they worked with.

Here's a couple articles:

Half of riders can't differentiate between saddles in blind test - BikeRadar USA

Tech: Researching how we sit on bicycles | VeloNews.com

This lead them to their new system where they're now making all of their saddles in two different sizes based on your power output and weight and such.

I don't have the Fizik PDF file, can't find it. Maybe it's on their site somewhere.


----------



## blackfrancois

ejewels said:


> How many of you run a shorter stem on your road bike?


all my keepers have short cinelli stems, either 85 or 90mm.


----------



## duriel

Changing from a 120 to a 80 changes the dia of the lever arm about 2mm, if you can feel that you are a master bike handler.


And I like 'quick' bikes... if I wanted a randolier, I would have bought one.


----------



## JCavilia

duriel said:


> Changing from a 120 to a 80 changes the dia of the lever arm about 2mm, if you can feel that you are a master bike handler.


I certainly can feel it - the response to steering input is different, requiring slightly different movement to get a given response by the bike. By the time I reach the end of the block I have fully adjusted, and don't notice it again the rest of the ride. It's no big deal. It certainly doesn't make it a poor handling bike.

No one ever called me a master bike handler, but 150,000 miles or so over 45 years has given me a certain level of comfort.


----------



## ejewels

Thanks all for the help. Again, The dealer had multiple sizes and I made it clear I may not buy and I was just interested in just getting a fit. I emailed him today asking about the stem length and saying my "friends" were questioning some things. Friends being this forum!

Anyways, here's part of his response. As you'll see I think we all were right in what we were speculating, and I'm hoping you guys can see that this guy is a stand up, good dude. Sorry if its a bit long:

"As for the stem, it may be easier to have a conversation on the phone. But simply the 80mm stem is not too short and is the correct stem length for you and the bike at this time. It will not negatively effect the handling of the bike and it definitely doesn't mean the bike is the wrong size. The engineers at Trek designed the bike with the intent that the stem would be changed when it is fitted to the customer. Bike designers understand bike fit and need to design the bike to fit a wide range of people. The adjustment areas on the bike are the saddle rails, stem length, and the number of spacers above/below the stem. The stem that ships with the bike is a neutral length stem for the size of the bike. In the case of your bike--56cm Domane-- it was originally shipped with a 100mm stem. We went 2cm shorter when we changed it to a 80mm stem. If we went 2cm longer to 120mm your friends wouldn't think twice about the stem being too long. You need to think of the stem that came with the bike as if it was right in the middle of a 2cm range--80mm too 120mm.
If you prefer to have a 90mm stem that is fine with me. You just won't be as comfortable as with the 80mm stem. Yes, some point in the future as you continue to ride more you may decide you are more comfortable with a 90mm or even the 100mm stem. But that will be because your range range of motion, flexibility, and stability have all changed over time. Right now your focus should be on comfort. In addition, you want to be sure your riding position doesn't negatively affect your neck. When we were on the fit cycle we started your fit with the fit cycle setup to simulate the 56cm Domane with the stock stem--100mm. Right away when you got on the bike you felt stretched out and uncomfortable. I suggest that you start with the 80mm stem and see how the bike feels. Once you get a number of rides outside, if you feel like you are a little cramped, then let's try a 90mm stem."


----------



## hazilim

I ride a Giant Defy Advanced ("medium" frame). I'm 5'7" tall, frame seems OK for me. At my age (now 72) I don't like the long reach (for me) of the 90mm original stem. I swapped out the 90 for an 80, even rode with a 70 for a while!
I notice absolutely no change in handling between any of the stems.
I feel way more comfortable with the 70 & 80 stems.
I didn't know that I was breaking any rules in changing to these shorter stems & I feel that comfort plays a big role in making longer rides enjoyable.
I'm inclined to recommend the use of whatever stem length the OP needs to ride comfortably.
Bob


----------



## Z'mer

My take is steering feeling is most effected by the parameters you would expect - head angle, offset, trail, and also wheelbase. These parameters are different between race and endurance bikes, and change with frame size changes as well. Also the bar width can change between frame sizes.

I would also ask people to consider the steering feel change when going from hoods to drops, which are set back about 8-9 cm from the hood position. This would be the equivalent of using a 80-90 mm shorter stem. 

As someone else has already posted, if you do the math, 2 cm changes in stem length has a very minimal change on the radius dimension from hand position to center of steering pivot, which is the size of your "steering wheel". 
What people may be feeling instead is a higher or lower center of gravity based on stem length, which absolutely will affect the response.


----------



## masont

I run an 80mm stem on my 54cm bike. I've also been fitting people on bikes for six years, trained on BG Fit and Retul. I'm an inflexible middle aged white guy (with short for my height arms) so I prefer the stack of the 54 to the 52. 

You steer a bike from your saddle by leaning. Not from turning the handlebars independent of anything else. Handlebar turn is more of a reactionary/balance issue than a steering issue. A 2cm shorter stem is not going to appreciably change your handling. Pay no attention to those who say it will. 

I would trust your fitter over a bunch of random dudes on the internet. He's seen you on the bike. He does this for a living. He's not some random jabroni claiming without knowing any of the info you'd need to know that they're just trying to ditch stock. 

And, if he gives you bad advice and it turns out it sucks, walk back in there, tell him the issues you're having, and I'd be shocked if he didn't fix it.


----------



## kbwh

Good fitter you have there, ejewels.

Thanks for the links, MMs. Unfortunately I do have to spread some rep before etc. But Boulder? Isn't that where most of the physicians Spesh use reside?


----------



## Srode

You told us you have a neck injury the fitter is accommodating with your more upright position temporarily on a road bike so it's not going to be a traditional looking fit, based on that alone I would suggest dimissing all the nay-sayers on the fit recommendation, unless someone comes up with a good technical reason an 80cm stem on a bike is wrong for some performance / safety reason and not just asthetics/tradition. I've used that size stem on one bike and didn't see bad effects from it. 

I can think of a few reasons you fitter might put you on a 56 with a shorter stem than on a 54 with another cm one of which would be saddle position on the rails to get you where he wants relative to the crank. The taller head tube means you can get less bar drop with the maximum spacers under the stem. The 56 may also allow you a better more fit in the future once you adapt to the bike and get over your injury constraints. Its not all about the stem, there's a lot of other things to think about in a bike fit and you don't start with the stem to get a fit right and I certainly wouldn't be worried about an 80mm stem for a temporary set up while you recover.


----------



## pedalbiker

.....


----------



## pedalbiker

ejewels said:


> Honest answers by who though, thats the question. Pro bike fitters? You're right, I don't want to hear assumption-fueled answers by people that don't know my proportions or body dynamics. Is that wrong? I also don't mean to sound confrontational. I just really want to see people's views on running a shorter stem.


Running that short of a stem is something I would not do. 

There you go.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

duriel said:


> Changing from a 120 to a 80 changes the dia of the lever arm about 2mm, if you can feel that you are a master bike handler.


um, but it changes weight distribution by 4 cm. Just move your hands back 4cm next time you're on a fast curvy road and you can decide for yourself if it makes a difference.


----------



## pmf

Jay Strongbow said:


> um, but it changes weight distribution by 4 cm. Just move your hands back 4cm next time you're on a fast curvy road and you can decide for yourself if it makes a difference.


I like how some folks here claim to be able to tell the difference in +/- 2.5 mm in a crank arm length, and not +/- 20 mm in a stem length.


----------



## kbwh

Fact: The claim is that the steering response is not negatively affected. 

But I guess facts are not valid currecy these days over there.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

kbwh said:


> Fact: The claim is that the steering response is not negatively affected.
> 
> But I guess facts are not valid currecy these days over there.


The claim that someone can feel the difference is no more or less valid than someone saying they can't. Some can some can't. That is the fact. 
Why can't you just accept that different people notice different things? Do you think there's some motivation to logging on the internet to lie to people about being able to notice a difference in handling with different stems?


----------



## ejewels

Thanks everyone for their help. Looks like my fitter was just doing his job and I need to work on my flexibility. At first I was a little concerned by the initial responses, but after we all got more info it seems to be OK. And one poster talking about the 56 giving more options and better for my condition was right... my fitter even discussed it.


----------



## bvber

MMsRepBike said:


> Racing cars have small steering wheels for this reason. So by definition it will make your handling more twitchy as they call it, or precise maybe, or faster, however you want to say it. A long stem is like a big steering wheel, like a bus. Slower, more stable, more input needed to turn.


Racing car steering wheel size vary roughly 16" - 11" depending on the type of race. Also, there is different rate of steering resistance and the degree of turn. It's much more complex than bicycle steering.


----------



## Z'mer

Jay Strongbow said:


> um, but it changes weight distribution by 4 cm. Just move your hands back 4cm next time you're on a fast curvy road and you can decide for yourself if it makes a difference.


I agree weight distribution is critical in turning. But a great percentage of the front back distribution is fixed by the position of the saddle. Changing your upper torso height, and dipping the shoulder / side lower has a much greater effect than absolute hand position. 

The torso height and side dipping can be facilitated by either bending more at the elbows, or going to the drops. Where the hands are maybe 8-9 cm further back than on the hoods.


----------



## velodog

Handlebar width probably has as much influence on front end leverage as stem length but I don't remember any discussion here about bar width influencing the bicycles handling. 

Well except handlebar matching shoulder width.


----------



## ejewels

masont said:


> I would trust your fitter over a bunch of random dudes on the internet. He's seen you on the bike. He does this for a living. He's not some random jabroni claiming without knowing any of the info you'd need to know that they're just trying to ditch stock.


Thanks for this response. I originally was trying to convey this but unfortunately people are quick to assume the worst. Human nature, I guess. Glad things worked out.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

velodog said:


> *Handlebar width probably has as much influence on front end leverage as stem length* but I don't remember any discussion here about bar width influencing the bicycles handling.
> 
> Well except handlebar matching shoulder width.


you're right, I imagine, but the thing apparently a lot of people don't get is that the topic has virtually nothing to do with leverage and has to do with weight distribution.

Those of us that feel the front wheel is less 'planted' thus more twitchy with a short stem feel that because we have less weight over it and/or that weight is moved back.

There's a reason most people instinctively don't bomb down curvy hills sitting up hands back and on the tops and it's not just to get more aero.


----------



## velodog

Jay Strongbow said:


> you're right, I imagine, but the thing apparently a lot of people don't get is that the topic has virtually nothing to do with leverage and has to do with weight distribution.
> 
> Those of us that feel the front wheel is less 'planted' thus more twitchy with a short stem feel that because we have less weight over it and/or that weight is moved back.
> 
> There's a reason most people instinctively don't bomb down curvy hills sitting up hands back and on the tops and it's not just to get more aero.


Even someone riding with a less than "optimal" length stem can get long and low by getting in the drops. I've seen too many out there with the bars so low and far forward that they riding on straight elbows and the bar tape in the drops looks as if its never been touched. 

This whole thread was started by someone who suffered a neck injury and he is given advice without knowledge of the injury. Is that injury going to result in permanent inflexibility, or temporary? If temporary, how long is that? Short term temporary may mean that he can make a smaller frame work but long term may mean a larger frame now and a possible smaller frame later.

And as far as long and low, and aero for that matter, what does that mean if he doesn't race? What is wrong with being comfortable on a bike in a more upright fashion and getting in the drops to ride into the wind or bomb some corners.

There are too many cyclist out in the wild with slammed stems and looong stems because of fashion and not what is optimal for them. What good is a slammed or long stem if the cyclist can't bend their elbows or get into the drops because it is uncomfortable to the point of pain?


----------



## Jay Strongbow

velodog said:


> Even someone riding with a less than "optimal" length stem can get long and low by getting in the drops. I've seen too many out there with the bars so low and far forward that they riding on straight elbows and the bar tape in the drops looks as if its never been touched.
> 
> This whole thread was started by someone who suffered a neck injury and he is given advice without knowledge of the injury. Is that injury going to result in permanent inflexibility, or temporary? If temporary, how long is that? Short term temporary may mean that he can make a smaller frame work but long term may mean a larger frame now and a possible smaller frame later.
> 
> And as far as long and low, and aero for that matter, what does that mean if he doesn't race? What is wrong with being comfortable on a bike in a more upright fashion and getting in the drops to ride into the wind or bomb some corners.
> 
> There are too many cyclist out in the wild with slammed stems and looong stems because of fashion and not what is optimal for them. What good is a slammed or long stem if the cyclist can't bend their elbows or get into the drops because it is uncomfortable to the point of pain?


I think you're projecting some meaning into my comments that simply wasn't there or intended.

I notice quicker handling with a shorter stem. Period. I'm not trying to tell anyone they need to be aero, look 'pro' or anything like that.


----------



## velodog

Jay Strongbow said:


> I think you're projecting some meaning into my comments that simply wasn't there or intended.
> 
> I notice quicker handling with a shorter stem. Period. I'm not trying to tell anyone they need to be aero, look 'pro' or anything like that.


I'm not projecting anything at you, I'm saying that optimal handling can be achieved with a shorter stem.

The rest of my statement is more about when others follow information blindly to achieve what they have been led to believe is the "Holy Grail".


----------



## kbwh

Jay Strongbow said:


> The claim that someone can feel the difference is no more or less valid than someone saying they can't. Some can some can't. That is the fact.


Not even an alternative fact.


> Why can't you just accept that different people notice different things?


Where did you get that from?


> Do you think there's some motivation to logging on the internet to lie to people about being able to notice a difference in handling with different stems?


Not in your case.

Still: It's weight distribution, trail and wheel base that are the main parameters for how a bike handles. Stem length is sub.


----------



## arai_speed

I love RBR.

Anytime somebody posts a question about bike fit/etc, numerous members are quick to post "get a professional bike fit".

Here we have a poster that did just that, and the responses range from "the bike fitter sucks", "he's trying to sell you old stock", "listen to me cause I know what I'm doing", "a stem of XX will cause the bike to handle like death" 


Damned if you do, damned if you don't :lol:


----------



## Z'mer

kbwh said:


> Still: It's weight distribution, trail and wheel base that are the main parameters for how a bike handles. Stem length is sub.


This ^
From a site that explains, among other things, countersteer - 
How you steer a bicycle


"The self-steering properties of the bicycle aid the turn. While standing still, lean a bicycle to the right and the front wheel will automatically steer right. The self-steering is caused by the bicycles "trail", the 







distance between the point where the wheel contacts the ground and the point where the steering axis of the front wheel intersects the ground. *The trail is the single most important parameter in designing the bike.* If the trail were to be negative (the wheel contact in front of the steering axis) the bike would be unrideable. Racing bikes, which need to be very maneuverable, have relatively small trails, typically around 6cm. Unfortunately, *a small trail makes the bike less stable.* Mountain bikes, touring bikes and lower performance bikes often have longer trails to make them more stable and comfortable."


----------



## velodog

More on trail, wheel flop and handling.

http://www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/resources/20140601_MechanicalAdvantageTrail_Heine.pdf


----------



## ziscwg

pmf said:


> Hey pal, I got 3990 poasts on rodebikereview.com


I have 4800 or something. So, I'm a better bike fitter than you?????

Ahhhh, Yeah, I run a 90 mm stem on my 56cm CAAD10. I had a 100, but always felt a tad reaching when I had my leg/saddle combo dialed in. I'm normally an mtber. So, wide bars and short stems are normal to me.


----------



## ejewels

arai_speed said:


> I love RBR.
> 
> Anytime somebody posts a question about bike fit/etc, numerous members are quick to post "get a professional bike fit".
> 
> Here we have a poster that did just that, and the responses range from "the bike fitter sucks", "he's trying to sell you old stock", "listen to me cause I know what I'm doing", "a stem of XX will cause the bike to handle like death"
> 
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't :lol:


I was thinking the same thing! I've been talking to my fitter more and he said that even when I get in optimal shape, and going to a 90 or 100... the bike still technically is my size. I guess going to a smaller frame if you can is the norm, but honestly I'm in this for cardio and fitness and don't plan to race. I feel like if I ever did, I'd buy a race specific bike, and maybe then go smaller. But all in all, the 56 IS my size regardless. Even trek's sizing guide (which i know is just off height) puts me in the middle of the 56. As another poster said, I'm a mtb'r at heart, so I kind of like being a little more upright... for now.


----------



## flattire

My first bike years ago had a very short stem on it, the bike was too large for me but I was able to get a decent position on it nonetheless. Probably less than an 80 stem. I rode that bike fine for many years, all kinds of training and loaded touring. When I got a nicer bike with a better fit, I did not notice any radically better handling that I could equate to the stem length. Ride the bike and see if it works for you.


----------



## TmB123

I think when long term injuries are involved, a lot of fitters just plug your physical dimensions into their "system" and try to fit you to what the numbers spit out, without taking into account, or understanding, how to actually deal with your requirements.

I had a long and low race bike setup, but also had a long term issue with my back and neck due to a car accident. It got to the point where I couldn't even get onto the bike without getting a migraine. I went to one of the local "expert" fitters and no matter how many times I told him that no, long and low doesn't work for me, he insisted on putting me in that position, well I have never been back there since.

For me after staring at my unused good bike for a couple of years and dealing with headaches, I eventually bought an endurance style bike and got one of those pivoting stems that put the bars way above seat height, it looked ridiculous, but, I could actually manage to ride around the block and gradually lowered the stem over time as I got stronger and rode further. I ended up on a fixed 80mm stem still at seat height, but I could ride and that's all that mattered. I have two new bikes now, both endurance geometries, both with 90mm stems and both at about seat height. I've tried to go longer and lower but my neck can't take it so stick with what works. I can go plenty fast down hills on those bikes.

I have short arms and legs and ride a 52cm frame, so reach is always an issue for me as well which doesn't help.


----------



## jamesh75

I have a 56cm Giant and have a 80mm stem, and it rides and handles great. When I bought it they fit me on a 54 with a little longer stem and the 56 with the 80mm and the 56 just felt better.


----------



## cxwrench

MMsRepBike said:


> That fit system, the Retul fit system and the rest like it are proven to fit you in an upright position. This is fine if your rides are all 20 miles or less. Fizik did a long study in the US with a university here and proved this point. Self fit people and pros were close to one another and fit with longer and lower stems. All of these fit systems fit people with shorter and higher stems.
> 
> As for the stem being a problem. Just think of it like this: *Your car's steering wheel is like 14" in diameter. Swap it out for a steering wheel that's 10" in a diameter, put a little tiny wheel on. It'll still work fine. It'll turn quicker, each little input you put into the wheel will turn the wheels more, it'll be more responsive. Racing cars have small steering wheels for this reason. * So by definition it will make your handling more twitchy as they call it, or precise maybe, or faster, however you want to say it. A long stem is like a big steering wheel, like a bus. Slower, more stable, more input needed to turn. So a 80mm stem is fine, but it's not ideal.
> 
> You'll be fine, you have to be comfortable, that's not a debate. So ride it until it's not comfortable anymore, it'll happen. It will hurt your back as is on longer rides. Once you start doing longer rides, go back in for a refit and I bet you'll come out of it with a lower and longer stem.


No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A smaller steering wheel will not make a car 'steer quicker' nor will a shorter stem make a bike handle differently. Steering wheel size in race cars changed because seating position change. In the old days drivers sat in very upright positions and the cars where a bear to steer so they sat close to very large steering wheels so they could basically wrestle the car around. Those old cars have very little mechanical grip as well so they had to correct over/understeer more than is needed now. But oddly enough they stuck w/ large steering wheels because of the leverage afforded. A lot of very large, quick movements were needed to keep old race cars headed in pretty much the intended direction. When the move to rear engine cars took place and aerodynamics became something that designers thought about, the driving position changed to a much more laid back set up...and because of that, the ideal size steering wheel dropped to something much closer to the width of a drivers shoulders. Through the later 60's, 70's and early 80's drivers used a laid back position w/ arms outstretched to the wheel. During the 80's the wheel was moved closer to the drive so they could be more precise w/ their inputs. Another contributing factor was the width of the cockpit getting narrower and narrower. 

The contributing factors that determine how quickly a car or bike steers are rake/caster, and trail, as well as the steering box ratio in cars...the ratio of how much a given amount of steering wheel movement turns the front wheels to the side. If you have a car w/ a slow steering ratio it will turn slowly no matter what you do to the size of the steering wheel. You can make the steering inputs very slightly quicker w/ a smaller steering wheel but you aren't changing the way the car itself steers. Same w/ a bike...the is what the geometry says it is...quick, stable, whatever. Changing the stem length doesn't change this, as bikes aren't 'steered', they turn by leaning and the relationship between the head tube angle and fork offset don't change so the bike always 'handles' the same. Your 'feeling' about how the bike turns may change a little, but in reality a stable bike is still a stable bike. 

That said, the more weight you remove from the front end the more 'vague' a bike will feel and this can be interpreted as being less stable, but changing weight distribution is the cause of this, it just happens because you're going to a shorter stem. 

As for the OP's fit guy telling him that a larger frame would give him "more options to tweak for fitting purposes and future growth, like getting more fit and wanting to get lower/more aero."...he's just plain wrong. As all modern frames grow in frame size the head tube gets taller, the necessitates a higher/less aero position, not the opposite.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

cxwrench said:


> That said, the more weight you remove from the front end the more 'vague' a bike will feel and this can be interpreted as being less stable, but changing weight distribution is the cause of this, it just happens because you're going to a shorter stem.
> 
> As for the OP's fit guy telling him that a larger frame would give him "more options to tweak for fitting purposes and future growth, like getting more fit and wanting to get lower/more aero."...he's just plain wrong. As all modern frames grow in frame size the head tube gets taller, the necessitates a higher/less aero position, not the opposite.


Exactly.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

80 is tiny. Bike fitting is bogus. As if anyone can tell you anything after measuring your. body and then they ask if u want it "aggressive" or not. Throughout my life I've extended the reach through stem and bars (don't forget they can add too) a total of maybe 5cm over 20 years. I'm not trying to be aero but have raised everything higher and longer and like it. Try it maybe. Try lots of stuff. Counter intuitive is that setting ur seat further back will make the ride be more comfortable as the weight is removed from the front. 

An 80mm stem...I would hate that going anything faster than 5mph

Considering there's so many different fit systems and they all give different results can't we see it for what it is. Don't waste your money on elitist money making bull. Tune in to ur body while riding and respect what u feel. On a real ride not 5 minutes on a trainer. When you go to the doctor he asks what you feel. Your history and all kinds of unknowable stuff about your body isn't included unless you include it


----------



## Tachycardic

ejewels said:


> [/I]Thanks. Thats reassuring.



I think you had already made up your mind before posting and you were just looking for validation. Unfortunately, the initial replies were not what you were looking for. I agree with dir-t; you came here, an internet forum, with the question. Then you come across as ungrateful and defensive. I mean, is this bike fitter your dad or related to you? 

Anyways, I ride with a 90mm stem and that's what I prefer on my bikes now. Not that I want to only use a 90mm stem, but that it just feels best for me. There was a time when my bike fit revolved around a 110mm stem, but limiting your fit based off stem size is sort of like that Kohler faucet commercial where the customer wants a house designed around a faucet. Ridiculous! Even the best fitting will only get you close to an ideal fit. There are plenty of other factors that come into play when you're on the road and not on some fitting machine in a controlled environment. Ride the 56cm/80mm and 54cm/90mm (and maybe a 52cm/100mm?) and get the bike that feels best.


----------



## askmass

I'm of the opinion that every person and the fit that best suits their particular, current, situation is wholly unique.

Key word, current.

I generally discard hard and fast rules, because people and their personal needs and what works best for them changes over time.

Things can change for the better, or the worse, be it improved fitness and flexibility, or injury, lessened fitness.

I started riding seven years ago on a 56 frame with a 90 stem flipped UP and a decent stack of spacers. I've since worked my tail off, improved fitness and flexibility, been injured in a bad crash and fought my way back. Tried this length crank, and that length crank, this bar and that bar, more, and less drop... I ride a 57 frame today, slammed, with a 120 stem.

That's not for fashion, but for my comfort and performance. Slight bend in the elbow, handles crisp, solid, doesn't beat me up.

I never could have ridden even ten miles on this set up seven years ago - and my best fit will no doubt be at least somewhat different seven years from now.

Trial and error, find what works best for you and your physique and fitness TODAY.

As an aside, I'm of the opinion that crank length can have a very strong influence on ones ultimate comfort and power, and again is a very individual thing.

Best to all, and most importantly get out there and ride!


----------



## masont

hummina shadeeba said:


> 80 is tiny. Bike fitting is bogus. As if anyone can tell you anything after measuring your. body and then they ask if u want it "aggressive" or not. Throughout my life I've extended the reach through stem and bars (don't forget they can add too) a total of maybe 5cm over 20 years. I'm not trying to be aero but have raised everything higher and longer and like it. Try it maybe. Try lots of stuff. Counter intuitive is that setting ur seat further back will make the ride be more comfortable as the weight is removed from the front.
> 
> An 80mm stem...I would hate that going anything faster than 5mph
> 
> Considering there's so many different fit systems and they all give different results can't we see it for what it is. Don't waste your money on elitist money making bull. Tune in to ur body while riding and respect what u feel. On a real ride not 5 minutes on a trainer. When you go to the doctor he asks what you feel. Your history and all kinds of unknowable stuff about your body isn't included unless you include it


Now imagine that your arms were 2cm shorter.


----------



## duriel

Mine are 4cm shorter!~


----------



## kbwh

hummina shadeeba said:


> Bike fitting is bogus.


What bollocks.


----------



## hazilim

I just re-read post # 37 from a few days ago:

"Changing from a 120 to a 80 changes the dia of the lever arm about 2mm, if you can feel that you are a master bike handler."

Therefore, changing from a 100 to an 80 ought to change the lever arm by about 1mm.
My bar is 420mm across. The "lever arm" is therefore approximately 210mm. An increase of 1% would increase the lever arm to only 212mm.
Then, the analogy to an car steering wheel: A decrease of 1% would make a 15" wheel shrink to 14.9". I don't think that this would affect anything at all, when it comes to driving the car.
In other words: Not at all significant.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

Which fit system is "the one" then? They all give different results. And next they'll tell you you need a specially designed frame specific to your body. As I said, over a 20 year period I've increased reach about 5cm. If I'd listened to fiters and not my own body I'd be in some kind of torture contraption for a large part of those years.


----------



## trailflow

If your stem is too short you may increase the chances of hitting your knee's on the handlebar when climbing standing out of the saddle. If you need a 56 size frame that suggests your are near 5'11ft tall or above and your legs are long'ish.

Also when climbing standing out of the saddle, a longer stem will help you shift your weight further forward in front of the crank and doing that can help you use your bodyweight to your advantage to turnover the pedals easier. The steeper the hill gets, the more beneficial this technique can be. If your stem is too short you will be limited of how far you can shift that weight forward.

If you dont plan to ride out of the saddle much then these things may not effect you as much.

With a short stem, on very steep hills, sat in the saddle, you will increase the likelyhood of the front wheel raising off the ground wheelie stylee (if your wheelbase is on the short side) as your weight is more towards the rear of the bike.

What size bikes did you previously ride, and for how long ? and what size stem did you use ?

What caused the neck issues ?


----------



## ejewels

cxwrench said:


> As for the OP's fit guy telling him that a larger frame would give him "more options to tweak for fitting purposes and future growth, like getting more fit and wanting to get lower/more aero."...he's just plain wrong. As all modern frames grow in frame size the head tube gets taller, the necessitates a higher/less aero position, not the opposite.


I should have clarified. He didn't say it had more options to go more aero, just that it had more options to play with in general... where on the 54 it would be only in one direction really...


----------



## ejewels

trailflow said:


> If your stem is too short you may increase the chances of hitting your knee's on the handlebar when climbing standing out of the saddle. If you need a 56 size frame that suggests your are near 5'11ft tall or above and your legs are long'ish.
> 
> Also when climbing standing out of the saddle, a longer stem will help you shift your weight further forward in front of the crank and doing that can help you use your bodyweight to your advantage to turnover the pedals easier. The steeper the hill gets, the more beneficial this technique can be. If your stem is too short you will be limited of how far you can shift that weight forward.
> 
> If you dont plan to ride out of the saddle much then these things may not effect you as much.
> 
> With a short stem, on very steep hills, sat in the saddle, you will increase the likelyhood of the front wheel raising off the ground wheelie stylee (if your wheelbase is on the short side) as your weight is more towards the rear of the bike.
> 
> What size bikes did you previously ride, and for how long ? and what size stem did you use ?
> 
> What caused the neck issues ?


treks sizing chart puts their 56 height range from 5'8" to 5'11.5". I'm just about 5'10" with long legs so usually I can go both ways depending on bike manufacturer. Neck injury is from being too low on my last giant defy which was a 54 and too small, or at least borderline. I didn't have great posture and with the combo of sleeping on it wrong and not stretching, one morning it just hit.


----------



## kapusta

I would not think twice about running an 80mm stem if that is what seemed the best fit.

I've been riding a 60mm stem for 6 years and I would guess about 10,000 miles. Could not be happier, especially on longer rides. It is optimal? Maybe not, but I find it pretty much a non-issue. I have ridden with longer stems, and they do handle differently, but I can't say one way is necessarily better.

Before someone comments on it: Yes, I know 60mm is quite unusual, but I would need to go custom to get a setup that would change this much. And yes, this effective bar stack/hieght IS what my proper fit is, arrived at through a full 3 hour Serotta fitting and years of experimentation.


----------



## jdsyachts

Use what feels best for you. Since you're buying a bike just make sure you let the LBS know that you will be coming back several times for them to change the stem several times in order to get the feel right. The LBS will have numerous stems they can change out for you until you find the right one. This is why you pay the extra $ to buy from the LBS.
Medical conditions dictate abnormal sizing.


----------



## Pisgah2000

As others have said, run what fits the best. After building my bike with a 100mm stem and experiencing some pain on longer rides, a fitting session ended with a 90mm stem (and some other minor adjustments). No more pain. It's been 5+ years, thousands of miles, and lots of steep, twisty stuff. While the specific frame/fork will also have an impact on handling, I have no complaints. 

If you decide later that you want something longer, a stem is a cheap, easy change to make. I'm similar size to you, and while everybody (and every body) is different, I'd also go with the 56... especially with the neck issue.


----------



## ejewels

Thanks guys. One thing I've noticed in this thread is there are 2 schools of thought with bike fit. Maybe I'm off on this... but it seems the racers or more traditional riders want the smaller size with longer stem, and the endurance riders want the larger size with shorter stem. My fitter (and other fit articles I've read) have said one person can technically fit 2 different size bikes. My body shape/size is always in the middle with bike fits. With mountain bikes i'm always either a M or L... and with road bikes I seem to be on the 54/56 line depending on manufacturer. With Giant, I'd probably go Medium. Thats why I like the 56 Domane... it has the reach of the Medium Giant Defy, and the stack of the ML Defy.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

ejewels said:


> Maybe I'm off on this... but it seems the racers or more traditional riders want the smaller size with longer stem, and the endurance riders want the larger size with shorter stem.


It's not so much a want as it is what people need to do to get the desired body position relative the head tube and top tube on the bike they get.

Racers want to be aggressive so they get the smaller frame because it has a shorter head tube. Upright riders need a longer headtube (or a mile of spacers) so get the bigger size and that means a shorter stem.


----------



## ejewels

Jay Strongbow said:


> It's not so much a want as it is what people need to do to get the desired body position relative the head tube and top tube on the bike they get.
> 
> Racers want to be aggressive so they get the smaller frame because it has a shorter head tube. Upright riders need a longer headtube (or a mile of spacers) so get the bigger size and that means a shorter stem.


Yeah. I'm good going a little larger and hope to eventually get to 90 or 100. I just want this snow to clear so I can actually ride!


----------



## ejewels

On a side note, do most bike mfg's measure reach the same way? In particular Giant and Trek. Do they both measure from BB to headset?


----------



## kbwh

Reach and stack should be universal: Measuring points should be centre of BB and centre of top of head tube, no headset cover.

That said, I prefer to look at top tube length and seat tube angle for fit. Call me old fashioned.


----------



## tjc

Lot of info in this thread, but my bike shop told me I need a 150mm stem and need to flip my offset seatpost around to the front and run saddle all the way forward so he could sell me a size medium frame... do you think my saddle to bar drop is too much for this size frame? Or do I need a new fitter? Pictures here:

Adam Hansen's Ridley Helium SLX - Gallery | Cyclingnews.com

Just ride what is comfortable for you and helps you go fast.


----------



## kapusta

ejewels said:


> Thanks guys. One thing I've noticed in this thread is there are 2 schools of thought with bike fit. Maybe I'm off on this... but it seems the racers or more traditional riders want the smaller size with longer stem, and the endurance riders want the larger size with shorter stem. My fitter (and other fit articles I've read) have said one person can technically fit 2 different size bikes. My body shape/size is always in the middle with bike fits. With mountain bikes i'm always either a M or L... and with road bikes I seem to be on the 54/56 line depending on manufacturer. With Giant, I'd probably go Medium. Thats why I like the 56 Domane... it has the reach of the Medium Giant Defy, and the stack of the ML Defy.


I would say I am more of an "endurance" rider in that I need more an upright fit.

For me, this means going to a smaller frame.

Upright for me means a shorter reach as well, so I end up on a smaller frame, and make up for the stack with more stem spacers.


----------



## MMsRepBike

tjc said:


> Lot of info in this thread, but my bike shop told me I need a 150mm stem and need to flip my offset seatpost around to the front and run saddle all the way forward so he could sell me a size medium frame... do you think my saddle to bar drop is too much for this size frame? Or do I need a new fitter? Pictures here:
> 
> Adam Hansen's Ridley Helium SLX - Gallery | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Just ride what is comfortable for you and helps you go fast.


It's for a reason. Let me guess... you have no idea why. Let me help you out:







Mr. Hansen is a man who counts every second and every watt. He has his own philosophy about bike fit, power transfer, efficiency and such. His fit is a reflection of that.

It may seem extreme to you, you may think he's forcing himself on a frame that doesn't fit him, but that's not the truth. In fact, he'd take an even shorter head tube if he could.


When you complete 16 grand tours in a row back to back come talk to me.


----------



## Fredrico

ejewels said:


> Thanks all for the help. Again, The dealer had multiple sizes and I made it clear I may not buy and I was just interested in just getting a fit. I emailed him today asking about the stem length and saying my "friends" were questioning some things. Friends being this forum!
> 
> Anyways, here's part of his response. As you'll see I think we all were right in what we were speculating, and I'm hoping you guys can see that this guy is a stand up, good dude. Sorry if its a bit long:
> 
> "As for the stem, it may be easier to have a conversation on the phone. But simply the 80mm stem is not too short and is the correct stem length for you and the bike at this time. It will not negatively effect the handling of the bike and it definitely doesn't mean the bike is the wrong size. The engineers at Trek designed the bike with the intent that the stem would be changed when it is fitted to the customer. Bike designers understand bike fit and need to design the bike to fit a wide range of people. The adjustment areas on the bike are the saddle rails, stem length, and the number of spacers above/below the stem. The stem that ships with the bike is a neutral length stem for the size of the bike. In the case of your bike--56cm Domane-- it was originally shipped with a 100mm stem. We went 2cm shorter when we changed it to a 80mm stem. If we went 2cm longer to 120mm your friends wouldn't think twice about the stem being too long. You need to think of the stem that came with the bike as if it was right in the middle of a 2cm range--80mm too 120mm.
> If you prefer to have a 90mm stem that is fine with me. You just won't be as comfortable as with the 80mm stem. Yes, some point in the future as you continue to ride more you may decide you are more comfortable with a 90mm or even the 100mm stem. But that will be because your range range of motion, flexibility, and stability have all changed over time. Right now your focus should be on comfort. In addition, you want to be sure your riding position doesn't negatively affect your neck. When we were on the fit cycle we started your fit with the fit cycle setup to simulate the 56cm Domane with the stock stem--100mm. Right away when you got on the bike you felt stretched out and uncomfortable. I suggest that you start with the 80mm stem and see how the bike feels. Once you get a number of rides outside, if you feel like you are a little cramped, then let's try a 90mm stem."


He's got it. He put you in an upright position because that's where your body is comfortable. He said after riding a few months or a year, you may want to stretch out the upper body a bit more, because, really, being able to modulate upper body weight between saddle, crank, and handlebars is the key to comfort. Racers go for default settings of 60% over the saddle and 40% over the handlebars. That fore-aft distribution is the best for bike handling as well as efficient pedaling. Sitting up places too much weight on the sit bones, does nothing for the back or shoulders, so they get tired over a long ride anyway. Give it a little time, and the neck won't get tired leaning a bit more forward. The arms can relax, hands draped on the hoods, elbows bent to absorb shocks; and the back will get flat, strong and comfortable, opening up the rib cage for easy breathing.

On the larger frame, you'll have more room to lengthen the reach, without upsetting the fore aft balance of the bike. Good choice.


----------



## jeffrey j

Great comments everyone. Overall what YOU'RE comfortable with is what matters most. 

As someone who's only road biked maybe 1,000 miles over the last 20 years but mountain biked about 3,000 miles, comfort is something we can all universally relate to. I don't think road bike geo hasn't changed as drastically as mtb, but it wasn't that long ago 67' hta & 50mm stems on a mtb were VERY RARE - now it's kind of the norm. 

I just recently got a new road bike (54cm - I'm 5'9" with 30" inseam and long torso) and finding a 100mm stem way too long. My back is killing me today after riding just 16 miles yesterday so I'm going to put a 80mm on there and see how that feels. Too short? Probably, but as others have said, it'll allow me to get comfortable and hopefully I'll be able to go up to a 90mm (or back to the 100mm) for a more aero/efficient riding position in the not so distant future.


----------



## ejewels

Thanks for all the help everyone. On a side note, Lets say I wanted to switch to an emonda or madone. Less endurance geometry. Specifically an Emonda though. With its shorter stack but longer reach... would the 56 still work (assuming a 80-90mm stem)? In other words, do you think his recommendation had to do with the Domane's geometry specifically, or would it be roughly the same on a Emonda?


----------



## Chader09

Assuming you want the bars in the same exact position relative to the BB...

whatever you gain in reach and lose in stack with a different frame, you would likely want to make that up in the change for the stem. 

That would mean an even shorter and taller stem for the race bikes (not ideal in some people's eyes) as compared to the endurance bike.

Due to the bar/stem arrangement on the Madone, that's not an easy proposition.

If short reach and tall stack is what you need, the Domane is the right bike.


----------



## ejewels

Well, I think if I got one of those bikes, I would want to be more stretched out and less "comfort" fitted. My fitter told me that the bike still technically fits me even if I run a 100mm stem, so I'm thinking getting the emonda with a 90 might be something to look forward to.

One thing that I've noticed is people completely disregard mfg frame size recommendations over the interwebz. I mean I understand its only based off height and not a real fitting...but people will blatantly tell you your bike is too small or too big even if you're technically in the size recommendations. For example, the size 56 starts at 5'8.5" in height and goes to 5'11.5". So TECHNICALLY I'm actually too large for the 54 as it tops out at 5'9.3" and I'm a hair over 5'10" with cycling shoes on. I just find it funny because I doubt Trek is wrong with their recommendation although people on here and other forums will tell you they are.


----------



## oldcannondale

JCavilia said:


> I have bikes with stems of 120 mm and 80 mm, chosen to adjust for different top tube lengths. The difference in handling from the stem length difference is subtle, small, and easy to adjust to almost instantly. It has far less effect than the real steering geometry parameters (head angle, rake, trail, etc.) There is zero "twitchiness" associated with the shorter stem, IME. I think people are overstating the "problem," based on my own experience.


Yep, head angle, rake, trail, determine how your bike handles, the stem controls your input into that closed system. 

To the OP, your fitter was looking for a taller front tube in order to elevate your upper body and taking the pressure off your neck and arms.
He's on the right track, and it sounds like you have someone willing to help you.

Your fellow posters here are trying to help you as well, and the suggestion to ride both bikes is a good suggestion. Enjoy your new bike and get out and ride.


----------



## Tachycardic

ejewels said:


> Thanks for all the help everyone. On a side note, Lets say I wanted to switch to an emonda or madone. Less endurance geometry. Specifically an Emonda though. With its shorter stack but longer reach... would the 56 still work (assuming a 80-90mm stem)? In other words, do you think his recommendation had to do with the Domane's geometry specifically, or would it be roughly the same on a Emonda?


Comparing the Emonda to a Domane is a mistake. They are engineered for different types of riding. Can you get an Emonda to fit like a Domane? Yes, but it will involve a lot more than just changing the stem length. That said, it is likely that his recommendations had to do with the Domane's geometry.

I agree with the folks that say buy the bike that feels the best to you, regardless of how many adjustments are needed. I, for one, fall into the camp that a 80 or 90cm stem will not hinder your riding. And I'll take the 54cm frame that needs more tweaking than the 56cm (or vice versa) if it means that it fits better. A larger amount of tweaking (handlebar reach and drop, stem rise, saddle height/fore/aft adjustment, crank length, cleat position, etc.) does not necessarily mean that the frame size is wrong. Remember, you're getting an OTS bike; tweaking is to be expected.


----------



## rayms

Would going to a 42 or 44 cm wide handlebar from a 40 cm allow me to drop my stem length from 135mm to 130mm?


----------



## cxwrench

rayms said:


> Would going to a 42 or 44 cm wide handlebar from a 40 cm allow me to drop my stem length from 135mm to 130mm?


I'd think that would be a reasonable assumption, yeah.


----------



## Fredrico

rayms said:


> Would going to a 42 or 44 cm wide handlebar from a 40 cm allow me to drop my stem length from 135mm to 130mm?


Probably. I'd try it. 40 cm bars are kind of narrow for a bike that has a 135 mm stem. 42s would probably work better. Or 44 cm if you're 6'5". Bar width roughly equal to shoulder width as far as comfort. 

Heck, keep the long stem and see how it works with 42 cm bars.


----------



## ejewels

trailflow said:


> If you need a 56 size frame that suggests your are near 5'11ft tall or above and your legs are long'ish.


still wondering about this. If you look at most general road bike sizing charts a 56 usually falls under 5'9"-5'11.5" for height and a 54 is 5'7"-5'9". So not sure why a 56 would only suggest near 5'11 and above.


----------



## Fredrico

ejewels said:


> still wondering about this. If you look at most general road bike sizing charts a 56 usually falls under 5'9"-5'11.5" for height and a 54 is 5'7"-5'9". So not sure why a 56 would only suggest near 5'11 and above.


If you're 6' tall 58 would fit best; if 6'2,' a 60 cm frame. Bikes are sized proportionally, like shoes.

But you knew that, right?


----------



## ejewels

Fredrico said:


> If you're 6' tall 58 would fit best; if 6'2,' a 60 cm frame. Bikes are sized proportionally, like shoes.
> 
> But you knew that, right?


if that were the case there would be a size for every inch in height to fit "best". There are ranges for a reason. Saying someone needing a 56 suggests they are 5'11" or above simply isn't true if the 56 covers 5'8" - 5'11.5". Unless I'm not understanding your analogy.


----------



## cxwrench

ejewels said:


> still wondering about this. If you look at most general road bike sizing charts a 56 usually falls under 5'9"-5'11.5" for height and a 54 is 5'7"-5'9". So not sure why a 56 would only suggest near 5'11 and above.


@trailflow is a actually quite close. 56 is in fact going to fit riders in the 5'10"ish height and above. It really depends on your proportions and flexibility. I'm a touch under 5'8" and have usually fit best on a 52. This way I can use a 120mm stem and have a really nice feel when cornering and the bar height I like relative to my saddle height. The sales guys at my shop (semi knowledgable, not bad but for sure not great) tend to put people on 1 size too big all the time. They think a 90mm stem is 'normal' on a 56 or 58 and don't understand weight distribution and front end traction very well. If a rider had average proportions and decent flexibility I'd be thinking along these lines:

5'4"-5'6" 50cm
5'6"-5'8" 52cm
5'8"-5'10" 54cm
5'10"-6'0" 56m
5'11-6'1" 58m
and so on. This is _generally_ where I would start when putting a customer on a bike. It obviously varies greatly w/ leg/torso/arm length and how flexible the rider is. 

My last rode bike was a 52cm Madone w/ a 120 stem. H2 head tube. No spacers. I'm not riding as much now and my flexibility isn't as great so my next bike could end up being a 54 Domane w/ the same 120 stem, maybe a 110. I'll be a little more upright and a little closer to the bars.


----------



## ejewels

cxwrench said:


> @trailflow is a actually quite close. 56 is in fact going to fit riders in the 5'10"ish height and above. It really depends on your proportions and flexibility. I'm a touch under 5'8" and have usually fit best on a 52. This way I can use a 120mm stem and have a really nice feel when cornering and the bar height I like relative to my saddle height. The sales guys at my shop (semi knowledgable, not bad but for sure not great) tend to put people on 1 size too big all the time. They think a 90mm stem is 'normal' on a 56 or 58 and don't understand weight distribution and front end traction very well. If a rider had average proportions and decent flexibility I'd be thinking along these lines:
> 
> 5'4"-5'6" 50cm
> 5'6"-5'8" 52cm
> 5'8"-5'10" 54cm
> 5'10"-6'0" 56m
> 5'11-6'1" 58m
> and so on. This is _generally_ where I would start when putting a customer on a bike. It obviously varies greatly w/ leg/torso/arm length and how flexible the rider is.
> 
> My last rode bike was a 52cm Madone w/ a 120 stem. H2 head tube. No spacers. I'm not riding as much now and my flexibility isn't as great so my next bike could end up being a 54 Domane w/ the same 120 stem, maybe a 110. I'll be a little more upright and a little closer to the bars.


So I guess you're saying Trek themselves is wrong when they suggest 5'8"-5'11.5" on their own bike? Maybe the fact your bike shop has many people who recommend too big aren't actually too big? Oh, and a professional bike fitter with 25 years of experience that was giving me an unbiased fitting (didn't have any of the bikes I wanted in stock so not trying to ditch stock) put me on a 56 Domane at 5'9.5"? Oh, and if you look at many general bike size charts, most start at 5'9" on a 56, not 5'10".

What are your credentials as a bike fitter? Just curious...


----------



## cxwrench

ejewels said:


> So I guess you're saying Trek themselves is wrong when they suggest 5'8"-5'11.5" on their own bike? Maybe the fact your bike shop has many people who recommend too big aren't actually too big? Oh, and a professional bike fitter with 25 years of experience that was giving me an unbiased fitting (didn't have any of the bikes I wanted in stock so not trying to ditch stock) put me on a 56 Domane at 5'9.5"? Oh, and if you look at many general bike size charts, most start at 5'9" on a 56, not 5'10".
> 
> What are your credentials as a bike fitter? Just curious...


Generally and depending on proportions and flexibility weren't enough to make it clear that I'm not saying every person and every bike? This is were I would start most times. It _depends_ on many variables.


----------



## ejewels

cxwrench said:


> Generally and depending on proportions and flexibility weren't enough to make it clear that I'm not saying every person and every bike? This is were I would start most times. It _depends_ on many variables.


I understand and didn't mean to discredit you. I also didn't mean to question your knowledge as it sounds like you work in a shop. I think the issue I have is suggesting a bike is too big when some people fall in between sizes like myself. So those same people on bikes one size too big... are they really too big, or are they in between sizes and chose to go larger? For instance, Treks performance road sizing puts a size 54 at 5'6" to 5'9". The 56 is for 5'8" - 5'11.5". So, someone at 5'9 is in between. If they went with a 56, its not really fair to say the bike is too big. Thats all my point is. Also, doing a quick google search of general road bike sizing, many charts say size 56 is 5'9-5'11. @trailflow's post suggested that if you're on a 56, you should be very close to 5'11 and up... which just isn't true.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

ejewels said:


> *I understand* and didn't mean to discredit you. I also didn't mean to question your knowledge as it sounds like you work in a shop. I think the issue I have is suggesting a bike is too big when some people fall in between sizes like myself. So those same people on bikes one size too big... are they really too big, or are they in between sizes and chose to go larger? For instance, Treks performance road sizing puts a size 54 at 5'6" to 5'9". The 56 is for 5'8" - 5'11.5". So, someone at 5'9 is in between. If they went with a 56, its not really fair to say the bike is too big. Thats all my point is. Also, doing a quick google search of general road bike sizing, many charts say size 56 is 5'9-5'11. @trailflow's post suggested that if you're on a 56, you should be very close to 5'11 and up... which just isn't true.


I don't think you do. You're fixated on matching height with a chart despite him trying to lead you away from it being so black & white.

Bike size charts, and bike size for that matter, matched to height alone is a guess at best. Top tube isn't the only measurement that matters in a bike nor is height the only measurement that matters on a body. Then there's flexibility and type of riding.

Buying a bike by height alone would be about like buying pants that way. Probably fine if you're Joe Average but proportions matter as do personal fitting preferences.


----------



## cxwrench

ejewels said:


> I understand and didn't mean to discredit you. I also didn't mean to question your knowledge as it sounds like you work in a shop. I think the issue I have is suggesting a bike is too big when some people fall in between sizes like myself. So those same people on bikes one size too big... are they really too big, or are they in between sizes and chose to go larger? For instance, Treks performance road sizing puts a size 54 at 5'6" to 5'9". The 56 is for 5'8" - 5'11.5". So, someone at 5'9 is in between. If they went with a 56, its not really fair to say the bike is too big. Thats all my point is. Also, doing a quick google search of general road bike sizing, many charts say size 56 is 5'9-5'11. @trailflow's post suggested that if you're on a 56, you should be very close to 5'11 and up... which just isn't true.


I've worked in the business for over 20 years, at a couple of shops that specialize in custom fitting. I've also been a pro team mechanic since '04. I've absorbed a lot of information and worked w/ some very accomplished fitting professionals, but I don't claim to be a fitter, I'm a mechanic. There are so many variables that it's very hard to say anything is an absolute.


----------



## ejewels

I agree that not one size fits all. I think I just got fixated on semantics.


----------



## TmB123

I think most sizes whether they are bikes, shoes, clothes etc are merely a starting point to get you in the right ball park and then you size up or down from there to get the right fit. Bikes are a little more complex as there are so many variables that can be changed to dial in the fit and a 52 in one brand may be quite different than a 52 in another.


----------



## Fredrico

ejewels said:


> I agree that not one size fits all. I think I just got fixated on semantics.


You'll be fine with a 56 size if that's what you've got ordered. The stack will be higher, so you'll be more upright. You'll be able to set the bars 0"-2" below saddle height, have more room for the back with the standard stem, be able to modulate plenty of weight on the front wheel for traction and control, and still sit up without overloading the rear wheel.

Cx's figures are on the small side in the charts, as you noticed. Racers like the smallest frame they can fit the upper body on, for stiffness and lightweight. They drop the bars 2-4" below saddle height and put on long 120mm-135mm stems to allow enough room to keep the back flat when leaned over into the headwind. Longer stems provide slightly longer levers that steer more "gently." The smaller bike responds to rider's movements slightly more efficiently than a larger bike would. 

The trouble is first time buyers frequently have to install upright stems to get the bars high enough to balance the rider fore-aft, that is, to be comfortable, and then there's not enough reach. Rider is hump backed and develops lower back pain he wouldn't have with a slightly greater reach. You want the rider to look like a peaked roof, not a toad.

You're gonna be fine on the 56, like the charts say. You'd also be fine on a 54, but it would be "tight," or require a 120-130mm stem. I have such a bike and love it! So either frame size would work great. Right now, I'd surmise you'd prefer the upright positioning on the 56. But in two years, who knows? The smaller frame would be a real pleasure, too.


----------



## 9W9W

cxwrench said:


> I'd think that would be a reasonable assumption, yeah.


I just swapped my 44's for 42's in an attempt at the very same thing. Keep in mind that while you will be increasing the distance to the hoods it a) will not translate to 5mm's exactly, but your premise is correct and b) will alter the angle of your wrists and how your hands grip the hoods. You may not be able to tell the difference depending how in tune you are to your machine.

I could tell the difference in how my wrists "rolled and palms flared out on the 44's. I can grip the hoods better now, without as much wrist flare.


----------



## ejewels

Fredrico said:


> You'll be fine with a 56 size if that's what you've got ordered. The stack will be higher, so you'll be more upright. You'll be able to set the bars 0"-2" below saddle height, have more room for the back with the standard stem, be able to modulate plenty of weight on the front wheel for traction and control, and still sit up without overloading the rear wheel.
> 
> Cx's figures are on the small side in the charts, as you noticed. Racers like the smallest frame they can fit the upper body on, for stiffness and lightweight. They drop the bars 2-4" below saddle height and put on long 120mm-135mm stems to allow enough room to keep the back flat when leaned over into the headwind. Longer stems provide slightly longer levers that steer more "gently." The smaller bike responds to rider's movements slightly more efficiently than a larger bike would.
> 
> The trouble is first time buyers frequently have to install upright stems to get the bars high enough to balance the rider fore-aft, that is, to be comfortable, and then there's not enough reach. Rider is hump backed and develops lower back pain he wouldn't have with a slightly greater reach. You want the rider to look like a peaked roof, not a toad.
> 
> You're gonna be fine on the 56, like the charts say. You'd also be fine on a 54, but it would be "tight," or require a 120-130mm stem. I have such a bike and love it! So either frame size would work great. Right now, I'd surmise you'd prefer the upright positioning on the 56. But in two years, who knows? The smaller frame would be a real pleasure, too.


thabks, Fredrico. When you say CXs figures are on the small side are you referring to what he rides with his longer stem? Or the size ranges he posted? I ask because the size ranges he posted are actually a bit on the high side since 56's nowadays usually start at 5'9 (not 5'10 like his ranges). I take it you meant his bike setup but just making sure. And yes, I'm liking the 56.


----------



## Fredrico

ejewels said:


> thabks, Fredrico. When you say CXs figures are on the small side are you referring to what he rides with his longer stem? Or the size ranges he posted? I ask because the size ranges he posted are actually a bit on the high side since 56's nowadays usually start at 5'9 (not 5'10 like his ranges). I take it you meant his bike setup but just making sure. And yes, I'm liking the 56.


I'm talking racers sizing frames a half to one size smaller for a given rider than the Trek figures for example. 

Watch the TDF and notice how high the saddles are, and how much lower the handlebar are dropped? They're riding smaller frames. A grand fondo, gravel, or touring bike would be larger. The seat wouldn't be more than 2 inches higher than the handlebars and a small to medium frame would have a slightly shorter stem proportional to the frame size. On a 54-56 that would be 10 or 11 cm. You'd find 12-13 cm stems on 58s and 60s. 

The idea is to keep fore-aft weight distribution balanced with the center of gravity being over the crank spindle. That's how bikes are designed to ride. Put a really short stem on a larger bike, too much weight will be on the rear wheel. Or a really long stem on a smaller bike, too much weight on the front wheel. 12 cm on a 54 cm bike is still fine, but a 13 cm stem would probably transfer too much of rider's weight on the front wheel or too little on the back wheel, depending on how you look at it. 

A common thing with small race bikes is riders slide the saddles all the way back to put a little more weight on the back wheel to compensate for the long stem.


----------



## masont

cxwrench said:


> @trailflow is a actually quite close. 56 is in fact going to fit riders in the 5'10"ish height and above. It really depends on your proportions and flexibility. I'm a touch under 5'8" and have usually fit best on a 52. This way I can use a 120mm stem and have a really nice feel when cornering and the bar height I like relative to my saddle height. The sales guys at my shop (semi knowledgable, not bad but for sure not great) tend to put people on 1 size too big all the time. They think a 90mm stem is 'normal' on a 56 or 58 and don't understand weight distribution and front end traction very well. If a rider had average proportions and decent flexibility I'd be thinking along these lines:
> 
> 5'4"-5'6" 50cm
> 5'6"-5'8" 52cm
> 5'8"-5'10" 54cm
> 5'10"-6'0" 56m
> 5'11-6'1" 58m
> and so on. This is _generally_ where I would start when putting a customer on a bike. It obviously varies greatly w/ leg/torso/arm length and how flexible the rider is.
> 
> My last rode bike was a 52cm Madone w/ a 120 stem. H2 head tube. No spacers. I'm not riding as much now and my flexibility isn't as great so my next bike could end up being a 54 Domane w/ the same 120 stem, maybe a 110. I'll be a little more upright and a little closer to the bars.


For athletes who ride hard, the lower stack of the smaller bike is helpful, and front end traction is something they care about. 

For an inflexible middle aged white guy, the higher stack of the larger bike is helpful, and front end traction isn't something that particularly affects them on a 20 mile ride at 15mph. 

I'll make recommendations specifically based on the customer's profile. Guess which one of those I see more of?


----------



## masont

General thoughts: 

Matching height to bike size is a really inexact science and something I wouldn't put any more stock in than a general guideline. Reason being is that we don't hold onto the bike anywhere with the top of our head, we hold onto the bike with our hands that are at the end of our arms. Two people who are the same height and have 2'' difference in arm length, or vastly different hamstring flexibility, or any number of other differences can be on very different sized bikes. "I'm 5'10'' and I ride a a 56, so if you're 5'10'' you should be on a 56 too" is not a wise statement to make. 

Ideally we would fit someone on a bike to the proper positions in space for their individual physiology and goals. Some people can be fit in the same positions in space on different sized bikes. In that case I'll usually default toward the bike that allows for the most adjustment in as many directions as possible. I don't like putting someone on a bike that fits them well, but doesn't allow for any adjustment in a particular direction. 

I know a 5'11''guy who rides a 52. He is a 25 year old professional cyclist who lives on his bike and is quite flexible. He can't get low enough on a 54 or a 56, so he runs a 130 stem slammed with no spacers. He is fit properly and has the flexibility, core strength, and ancillary musculature (such as neck muscles to hold his head up when his body is that low) to handle that position. I know another 5'11'' guy who rides a 58, and he is also fit properly. He is a fairly fit yet inflexible guy who has really long arms, rides recreationally, and likes to be in an upright, comfortable position on his road bike. He runs a 100mm stem pointed up with all the spacers on his 58 and is also fit properly. 

General guidelines are usually good. Those are extreme examples on opposite sides of the bell curve with a whole bunch of people who fit general guidelines in the middle. But when we talk about the size of bike to height, we are fitting all of the person to the bike, not just the total difference between the bottom of their feet and the top of their head when they are standing in a position that is totally different than they'll ever be able to ride a bike on.


----------



## masont

Fredrico said:


> You'll be fine with a 56 size


Maybe. Probably even. Maybe not though. 



> The trouble is first time buyers frequently have to install upright stems to get the bars high enough to balance the rider fore-aft, that is, to be comfortable, and then there's not enough reach. Rider is hump backed and develops lower back pain he wouldn't have with a slightly greater reach. You want the rider to look like a peaked roof, not a toad.


No. You want the rider to resemble what they look like normally when they're on the bike. If they have a ramrod straight back, you want them to look ramrod straight. If they are lordotic, you want them to resemble someone with lordosis on the bike. Same if they are kyphotic. 



> You're gonna be fine on the 56, like the charts say. You'd also be fine on a 54, but it would be "tight," or require a 120-130mm stem.


I don't know how you say things like this without watching him pedal a bike, measuring his hamstring flexibility, and seeing how he reacts physically to moving the front end around in different directions.


----------



## masont

Fredrico said:


> I'm talking racers sizing frames a half to one size smaller for a given rider than the Trek figures for example.


To unpack this a little bit, this is because when we talk about sizing we talk about where the front end of your bike is in space. Your saddle position is going to be in the exact same position relative to your bottom bracket on any bike (assuming the same crankarm length), because the height and fore/aft of your saddle is determined by your physiology, and there is a ton of adjustability in the seatpost/saddle. 

The front end of the bike isn't near as adjustable. We need to replace stems/bars and remove or add spacers to get you in the proper position for you. So, generally we select size based on where the front end is relative to the bottom bracket for our individual athlete. If you need to be lower/shorter a smaller size is better. If you need to be higher/farther away a larger size is better. 

Pros need to be lower yet not necessarily closer, so you see smaller frames with longer stems to accommodate their goals. It should go without saying that they are generally outliers in our world.


----------



## ejewels

Thanks all. If you read earlier in the thread I was fitted and watched on the bike. My fitter was/is great and I'm confident with my setup and was only asking about semantics earlier. I get that we're all different and that one day when I'm more flexible I may try a 54. Fit can change over time. Right now I'm comfortable and happy and getting faster. Thanks again for all of the help.


----------



## zephxiii

I ride 54 and 56 frames from same brand. Both work just fine. I'd say they are both equal, just different. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Opus51569

I've been pondering one of these...

Grand Cru Cigne Stem, Noir

L.D. stems are about as high and short as it gets.

As for the conventional wisdom...FWIW

Yes, pro-level still drives much of the demand and the market. But that doesn't make it "normal". I would argue there is a big difference between a racing bike and a road bike. Sure, racing bikes are going to have the smallest frame possible (for weight and aerodynamics), high setback saddles, long slammed stems, etc. If anyone thinks that's "normal" or the intended set-up for the bike, consider how many years of training it takes for a pro rider to conform his/her body to maximize that position on the bike. It's efficient and powerful, but not at all "normal". If you choose to emulate that set-up and position, good on you, but don't look down your nose at anyone who chooses not to.

A road bike can be just as "normal" with a larger frame and more relaxed/upright position. Personally, I like a larger frame, minimal setback/short post, shorter high-rise stem and wide bars. For me, riding in the drops is probably close to where most racers are positioned on their hoods since my saddle-bar drop is pretty close to 0. Get your larger frame and your short stem, OP if that's what works for you.


----------



## bvber

masont said:


> For an inflexible middle aged white guy,


 Will the same apply to, say... inflexible middle aged Indian guy?


----------



## MercRidnMike

ejewels said:


> My question is, how many of you run a shorter stem on your road bike? I've always used 100+ stems but was never professionally fitted until yesterday.


It all depends on your proportions. As others have said, you do need to be cautious about the sale of what the shop has vs. what you need, but what works best for you will depend on your body.

I'm 6', on a 58 cm frame and I too am running a shorter stem (70 mm). In my case, I've got longer legs and a bulky torso (I'm built like an NFL defensive lineman) so my shorter stem is coupled with a 440 mm bar to match my broad shoulders and shorter reach. I also am more into the endurance / long distance solo rides and don't have the same flexibility to get fully slammed and into the "road race" profile. I can still get relatively flat backed on the drops or when using clip-ons, but I'll never get the full head down / butt up of a racer in full glory.

I could have gone with a 56 cm frame and longer stem (it's what the manufacturer recommended based on my height and what the shop had in stock), but I was willing to wait for the shop to bring in the 58 because it was a better fit overall to my needs. If the fitter is worth their salt and you're comfortable riding with where they've tweaked you to, then roll with it.


----------



## GammaDriver

ejewels said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I got a professional fit for 2.5 hours yesterday at my LBS. The guy used Trek precision fit along with a mix of serotta and other fitting techniques/theories. I am coming off a neck injury, so it was important for me to be a little more upright and comfortable getting back into the game.
> 
> After all was said and done, I most closely matched with a 56 Domane but with a 80mm stem. It was Trek's closest match mathematically as well as my fitter. If I went 54 it had me on a 90mm stem, however the 56 required less fit modification overall and gave me more options to tweak for fitting purposes and future growth, like getting more fit and wanting to get lower/more aero.
> 
> My question is, how many of you run a shorter stem on your road bike? I've always used 100+ stems but was never professionally fitted until yesterday.


You've had plenty of replies, but you might not believe how short I had to go on my current bike. Unfortunately, I took a chance on what should have been a standard fit, but it turns out that the bikes I've had in the past just fit me well, but were - now that I realize it - shorter top tubes that coincided with what I've learned is my slightly shorter torso. 

"Profile Design Aris Stem: 70mm +/- 25 degree 1-1/8" 31.8 Black" - not only is it shorter, but 25 degrees up puts the bars where they needed to be. 
Profile Design Aris Stem: 70mm +/- 25 degree 1-1/8" 31.8 Black | eBay

I learned a lesson, and will most likely get a professional bike fit before buying the next bike (unless I can find a brand and model that has a verified shorter-torso fit for guys).


----------



## GammaDriver

MercRidnMike said:


> It all depends on your proportions. As others have said, you do need to be cautious about the sale of what the shop has vs. what you need ...


This. Probably the most reputable shop in the area still tried to sell me on what they had - and neither size they put me on felt right. They did an ad-hoc bike fitment since I was there to definitely buy a bike, but it just wasn't working for the few models and price-range I wanted. 

The shops are desperate to sell you (us ... me) a bike with the hopes that you'll keep coming back for support, or maybe they do make some good coin on each bike sale. All three shops I went to to seriously try and consider a bike were politely forcing specific bikes down my throat as the right bike for me, yet none of them really fit me (shorter torso, longer legs guy). In the end I am so glad I didn't pay twice the price of what I ended up with (I ordered a carbon fiber bike online) for a fit that was not going to be 'right' for me. 

This is just one area where, just like the shoes you wear where you absolutely know your width and length, you have to take a stand against being sold the wrong width or length shoe.


----------



## Opus51569

If I was to invest in a fit, it would be a place with a philosophy like this:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/cyclin...-prevent-injuries-physio-lead-bike-fit-326885


----------



## Fredrico

masont said:


> Maybe. Probably even. Maybe not though.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You want the rider to resemble what they look like normally when they're on the bike. If they have a ramrod straight back, you want them to look ramrod straight. If they are lordotic, you want them to resemble someone with lordosis on the bike. Same if they are kyphotic.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you say things like this without watching him pedal a bike, measuring his hamstring flexibility, and seeing how he reacts physically to moving the front end around in different directions.


True, riders have to start with a fit they can make within the limitations of their flexibility and fitness, and that changes as the miles add up and deficiencies become apparent. 

Ok, so newbies are most comfortable sitting up. But they soon learn that distributing weight fore aft makes the bike handle better and is a more full body. activity than sitting up. 

So I'm going to say there's a range of ideal fit for a given rider, no matter his conditioning. When he's close to it, he'll feel it. On a drop bar road bike that won't be sitting up like a toad. It'll be leaning forward like a peaked roof.


----------



## Opus51569

Orrrr...










...rrriibbbiittt....rrriibbbiittt...


----------



## Fredrico

Opus51569 said:


> Orrrr...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...rrriibbbiittt....rrriibbbiittt...


If you want the handlebars to be that high on a road bike, the shape of the stem goes nicely with the drops, so it might look ok. But putting the steering that high takes weight off the front wheel and would seem to risk losing control easily, like climbing for example. How does it ride?


----------



## Opus51569

It's only on the rollers at the moment, but it handles fine. There's not much climbing where I live. Also, the bars are 44s c-to-c so the wider stance helps provide better control than narrower bars might.


----------



## Migen21

This is just me talking, but I think if I needed my bars that high to be comfortable, it might be time to consider a recumbent.


----------



## bvber

Opus51569 said:


> I've been pondering one of these...
> 
> Grand Cru Cigne Stem, Noir


For a second, I thought you posted a link to kitchen faucet store.









I was looking for one the other day...


----------



## SwiftSolo

The problem is not you or your explanation. 

The problem is you failed to understand that people who spend their days hanging out on internet forums are experts. They can tell the size of bike you need simple by the length and structure or your sentences. They can do it without even suffering the inconvenience of spending the time to comprehend what you are saying/asking.

With that being said, the following is a guess at what the bike shop is dealing with. It is only a guess: It sounds like the fitter believed that you have a very temporary health issue--That you need a bike set up temporarily to deal with that health problem and that you'd like that bike to transition toward a more standard fit as your health improves. It sounds as if he has concluded that a 54 is too small even though it would likely feel better in your present condition.

In the end, *you* will have to decide who to listen to. 



ejewels said:


> I think I probably should have stated that I'm not going for a race fit, smaller bike, etc. I WANT a larger, stable endurance fit for my neck issues. The stem length was basically due to me constantly saying "this feels better" when we were on the reach part of the fit. He even expected me to be on a longer stem. I think going on the shorter stem was more likely a result of my flexibility and comfort now, which I hope will change.


----------



## ejewels

SwiftSolo said:


> It sounds as if he has concluded that a 54 is too small even though it would likely feel better in your present condition.
> 
> In the end, *you* will have to decide who to listen to.


agreed. But aren't you essentially doing the same offering this advice/opinion? How would a bike too small feel better if I got lower and more cramped? My bike feels great right now and the 54 felt cramped and that's where I got more neck pain.


----------



## SwiftSolo

You have to look at the complete geometry to figure this out. As you shorten the top tube it is similar to raising the bars. As you lower the stack height (head tube mostly). it is the similar to lengthening the reach by lowering the bars. Both examples relate mostly to the height and location of your shoulder joints relative to the frame.

Assuming seat height and location as a fixed location relative to the bottom bracket, spacers and stem length/rise can likely make either bike sit approximately the same.
The question is, which bike will be right once you're recovered.

Incidentally, I gave you no advice or opinion in in either post. Again ,as with my previous post, I am guessing what the fitter may have meant with his opinion/advice.
I take issue with those who extrapolate from your post that the fitter necessarily lacked integrity.


ejewels said:


> agreed. But aren't you essentially doing the same offering this advice/opinion? How would a bike too small feel better if I got lower and more cramped? My bike feels great right now and the 54 felt cramped and that's where I got more neck pain.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Actually. exactly wrong! Moving a small steering wheel ( a wheel with the hand position closer to the post) will turn the wheel through more degrees of rotation than a larger wheel.

Last time I checked, on any given car, it is the number of degrees of steering wheel rotation that determines the turn rate (remember 3.1417 X D). A 2' diameter steering wheel has to be turned twice the distance of a 1' wheel to be rotated the same number of degrees.

On the other hand, this has absolutely nothing to do with how a two wheeled vehicle turns.


Jay Strongbow said:


> Exactly.


----------



## Fredrico

Opus51569 said:


> It's only on the rollers at the moment, but it handles fine. There's not much climbing where I live. Also, the bars are 44s c-to-c so the wider stance helps provide better control than narrower bars might.


Yep, wider bars, wider steering levers, might cancel out the disadvantage of height. Seems to work, right? Go for it!


----------



## Opus51569

bvber said:


> For a second, I thought you posted a link to kitchen faucet store.
> 
> View attachment 318892
> 
> 
> I was looking for one the other day...


Either that or the lamp store...


----------



## ejewels

SwiftSolo said:


> You have to look at the complete geometry to figure this out. As you shorten the top tube it is similar to raising the bars. As you lower the stack height (head tube mostly). it is the similar to lengthening the reach by lowering the bars. Both examples relate mostly to the height and location of your shoulder joints relative to the frame.
> 
> Assuming seat height and location as a fixed location relative to the bottom bracket, spacers and stem length/rise can likely make either bike sit approximately the same.
> The question is, which bike will be right once you're recovered.
> 
> Incidentally, I gave you no advice or opinion in in either post. Again ,as with my previous post, I am guessing what the fitter may have meant with his opinion/advice.
> I take issue with those who extrapolate from your post that the fitter necessarily lacked integrity.


My fitter put me on the size I'm on because it fit best, period. Could I get a 54 and make it work? Of course... most people can ride 2 sizes especially when in between( like myself). All comes down to preference amd goals. The 56 fit me slightly better and I'm more than happy with it and my neck has been getting better. 90% there!

But yes I agree on the slightly paranoid, "LBS is out to get everyone" comments and questioning integrity too. most people who have a bad experience generally project their experience on others. But the worst part? People not reading the entire thread where I've already addressed any speculation on the LBS trying to ditch stock.


----------



## velodog

Opus51569 said:


> Either that or the lamp store...
> 
> View attachment 318907


Only if you're running a headlight on the bike.


----------



## bvber

velodog said:


> Only if you're running a headlight on the bike.


Not a good idea during summer.


----------



## ejewels

MercRidnMike said:


> I'm 6',
> I could have gone with a 56 cm frame and longer stem (it's what the manufacturer recommended based on my height and what the shop had in stock), but I was willing to wait for the shop to bring in the 58 because it was a better fit overall to my needs. If the fitter is worth their salt and you're comfortable riding with where they've tweaked you to, then roll with it.


Interesting. For Treks sizing chart, size 56 ends at 5'11.5". In my experience a 58 generally is what a 6 foot rider would be on. Maybe that brand runs larger?


----------



## Peter_T

The professional fitters who posted above all know more than I do about this but I do know one thing that matters here that no one mentioned (or maybe I missed it). Your torso-length to leg-length ratio matters a great deal, and if you're unusual in that way then you will confuse many professional fitters. I know as a person with an unusually long torso and short legs for my height (a Yogi Bear park ranger build). It's probably the same for someone who is unusual in the opposite way, as I gather that you may be.

Also, it matters whether you ride mostly on flats or you do a lot of climbing. I know this as a Kansan who rides in the Colorado Rockies every summer. What is comfortable for the kneck on flats and rolling hills can be murder with the greater kneck extension required for long mountain climbs. I have learned to handle the difference by changing stems when I go to Colorado, from 0 degrees 120mm for KS to 7 degrees upwards, 100 mm for Colorado.


----------



## Devastazione

I'm 6', always rode 56 frames from Specialized,they all came with 100mm stem. Moved to Giant ML size ( about 57 ) and the bike came with a 110mm stem. I wouldn't say it was uncofortable but something was definitely missing at slow speed turns or it felt a bit light at the front at high speed DH's. Moved to a 100mm stem and it's been a night and day difference. Even my saddle position improved. I reckon I may have long enough arms and legs but my torso may be on the shortish side..


----------



## Opus51569

velodog said:


> Only if you're running a headlight on the bike.












Done.


----------



## velodog

Opus51569 said:


> Done.


Man, talk about "lightin 'em up".


----------



## Opus51569

velodog said:


> Man, talk about "lightin 'em up".


Yeah, that might be a bit much. To be honest, the first image I had once I installed the stem was this one:










I may have to start calling the bike "Nessie"


----------



## velodog

Opus51569 said:


> Yeah, that might be a bit much. To be honest, the first image I had once I installed the stem was this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have to start calling the bike "Nessie"


As far as a name for a bike, that one suits it and works pretty well.


----------



## Lookbiker

Old thread I know but I feel the op's pain. Thanks to neck arthritis, my stem has gone from 130mm in the 1980s to 100mm this year with an ever increasing number of spacers under the stem. Those spacers reveal my age like counting the rings in a tree. Riding relatively pain free is more important than having a "pro Look." It took a few years and nasty looking x-rays to convince me of that.


----------



## jimb100

ejewels said:


> Thanks. I think you're right here. I complained a lot about my neck issue so that may have swayed him. Also, not being flexible and out of shape only lets me lean over so far and feeling comfortable, so I'd imagine that has a lot to do with it. Guess my question is how much will the 80mm stem affect the ride/geo compared to the stock 100. I ended up sending him an email asking more about the stem setup and his thoughts. Will report back.
> 
> For saying its completely wrong and not how Trek intended it may be right. BUT, I will say that it was the Trek precision fit system that suggested it once the fitter put in all the numbers/notes. Basically you do the fit session and after inputting it all into the system, it outputs a bunch of bikes/sizes/combos. The Domane 56 with the 80mm stem was at the top of the list (top is the best match). As you went down the list the size 54 showed up and then a Giant Defy. So if Trek is suggesting swapping the stem I'd say it can't be THAT big of a deal.


I have neck and back issues. I have a Madone 56 H2 and run an 80mm stem. The bike is not 'twitchy'. I don't care how the bike is 'supposed' to be equipped, according to people on the internet who like to parrot prevailing wisdom.

If you find your setup is not to your liking at a point in the future, change it. Or trade your bike in on a different one.

Everything changes over time.


----------



## Opus51569

jimb100 said:


> I have neck and back issues. I have a Madone 56 H2 and run an 80mm stem. The bike is not 'twitchy'. I don't care how the bike is 'supposed' to be equipped, according to people on the internet who like to parrot prevailing wisdom.
> 
> If you find your setup is not to your liking at a point in the future, change it. Or trade your bike in on a different one.
> 
> Everything changes over time.


Yep. I ended up removing the Cigne stem because it was too tall even for me. But at 5'9" I ride a 56 frame with a high-rise (40 degree) stem and a few spacers. It gives me shorter reach for my T-Rex arms with essentially 0 drop to the bar tops. With my setup, the drops put me about where others would be with a slammed stem on the hoods. It handles just fine and comfort is more important to me than power or aerodynamics.










Then again, I’ve never clipped in to a pedal or ridden a bike made of carbon fiber...


----------



## Fredrico

Opus51569 said:


> Yep. I ended up removing the Cigne stem because it was too tall even for me. But at 5'9" I ride a 56 frame with a high-rise (40 degree) stem and a few spacers. It gives me shorter reach for my T-Rex arms with essentially 0 drop to the bar tops. With my setup, the drops put me about where others would be with a slammed stem. It handles just fine and comfort is more important to me than power or aerodynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, I’ve never clipped in to a pedal or ridden a bike made of carbon fiber...


Nice bike. Custom? 34 t. chain ring? That would make a nice spread on the rear cluster for the terrain those tires would be set up for.

Wrench Science has their "eddy fit," bar tops about 2 inches below saddle. With a shorter reach, fore-aft balance is shifted back and the bars would be most comfortable at about the same height as saddle, like in the pix. The eddy fit also sets up a nice range of positioning between sitting up and hunkering down in the drops. All positions are possible without slamming the stem down 4 inches below saddle height.

Hey, put some clips and straps on those pedals. Do your legs a favor. .


----------

