# Stem + degree rule



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

Are there any? Is there a rule as far as how much + stem use to have? I know there are different ones, +10, +17. Right now I am running an 80 mm +6 but think I might like more rise but not more stretch, is +17 to much? Is +10 to much? Just wondering. Is there a point where it would be to much?


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Bike Stem Calculator - Brightspoke


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Basically if you add more rise you will end up needing a longer stem to leave the bars in the same position forward.
I have my own personal rule that if there is more than say 20mm of spacers plus a positive rise stem then the geometry is quite probably wrong.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

FTR said:


> I have my own personal rule that if there is more than say 20mm of spacers plus a positive rise stem then the geometry is quite probably wrong.


You're partly correct here, but many bikes don't have tall enough head tubes for the less flexible people. An ideal head tube length for me (for example) is about 200mm on a 56cm, and that's with the stem facing up! But, if someone buys a bike that has a 160mm head tube and needs 180+, then that'd be a very true statement.


----------



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

Thanks for the stem calculater link looigi, I appreciate it! Right now my set up is:

Headtube length: 11.5 cm
Spacers: "4" 10 mm spacers under stem (40 mm total spacers) 
Stem: 3 T Team 80 mm +/- 6 deg in the + postion

It still feels like a am stretching a bit when on the hoods which is where I am most of the time. I just wonder about a 70 mm and how that would feel? Also how close my knees would come to the bars when pedaling while riding in the hood postion and the drop postion. Right now my seat and bars are about level. Over all it feels pretty good, but I would just like to get it so I don't feel like I am stretching that extra bit of probaly 10mm, but then would like to maybe go a touch higher too? 

I have only been riding the bike for less than 2 weeks, maybe I just need to give it some time getting use to the riding postion as the LBS said? This is my first road bike as I have been riding mountain bikes for years, wider bars, that bike fits like a glove. When I was set up on the mountain bike the LBS put an 80 mm 0 deg stem on and I alway's felt like I was stretching a bit on that until I put a 70 mm 0 deg stem on, problem solved! I hate to buy a bunch of stems to let lay around.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

I would keep riding and you'll stretch out over time. I had a long layoff for illness, and when I resumed riding, I bought a shorter stem to comfortably reach the hoods. After a year or so I got a longer stem again (still not as long as the original). So I'd give it some time, then decide.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Peanya said:


> You're partly correct here, but many bikes don't have tall enough head tubes for the less flexible people. An ideal head tube length for me (for example) is about 200mm on a 56cm, and that's with the stem facing up! But, if someone buys a bike that has a 160mm head tube and needs 180+, then that'd be a very true statement.


And that is what I mean by the geometry is probably wrong for you.
Why would someone by a bike that quite obviously does not have the geometry to ride it without having to compromise with a stack of spacers and positive rise stem?


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Bizman said:


> Thanks for the stem calculater link looigi, I appreciate it! Right now my set up is:
> 
> Headtube length: 11.5 cm
> Spacers: "4" 10 mm spacers under stem (40 mm total spacers)
> ...


40mm of spacers and positive rise stem says that this bike does not work well for your body type.
If you bought it new I would be taking it back and seeking a refund.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

2 weeks on a road bike is pretty short and compared to many MTB set-up's the position is quite different. Give yourself some time to become accustomed. Roughly saying after about 250 miles see how you feel. I wouldn't recommend buying any stems at this point. As you put more miles on the road bike, many of us find that we want a more stretched out position. So, just give yourself time. 

If the sales person got you ball park for fit, you should be able to work with this bike. There are plenty of small tweaks to refine.


----------



## vmaxx4 (Jul 19, 2011)

I was in your situation a few weeks ago. I felt my reach was a bit too far as well as my seat was not quite back far enough. I ended up getting a 10mm shorter stem (90 to 80mm) as well as getting some compact FSA carbon bars that also pulled back the front end positioning a bit. I was then able to move my seat back about 10mm to correct my knee to pedal allignment at the 3 o'clock position. 
I also had the same issue with my mountain bike and went from a 100mm to 90mm stem and the bike now fits a lot better. I had read the rule of thumb for mountain bikes is from tip/front of the seat to the bars should be the length of your elbow to the tip of your middle finger. I'm not sure if there is such a rule for road bikes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2011)

FTR said:


> Basically if you add more rise you will end up needing a longer stem to leave the bars in the same position forward.
> I have my own personal rule that if there is more than say 20mm of spacers plus a positive rise stem then the geometry is quite probably wrong.


Upon closer inspection, it appears my bike has 20mm of spacers with a +6 degree stem. The way it's configured now, I spend slightly more time riding in the drops vs the hoods. With the stem flipped negative, I was almost never using the drop position except on descents. I may flip the stem back as I gain fitness/core strength/flexibility (I've been riding a road bike less than a month)

this fit was mostly determined by the fact I'm very long-legged for my height, so ended up needing a smaller sized bike to get a shorter top-tube length for the correct reach. Because of my long legs I end up riding with the seatpost extended quite far--so even with a spacer stack + positive rise stem, I still have a pretty substantial saddle-bar drop. It sounds like the OP may have a similar body type based on the description of his bike setup (short stems / tall spacer stacks)


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

PhotonFreak said:


> Upon closer inspection, it appears my bike has 20mm of spacers with a +6 degree stem. The way it's configured now, I spend slightly more time riding in the drops vs the hoods. With the stem flipped negative, I was almost never using the drop position except on descents. I may flip the stem back as I gain fitness/core strength/flexibility (I've been riding a road bike less than a month)
> 
> this fit was mostly determined by the fact I'm very long-legged for my height, so ended up needing a smaller sized bike to get a shorter top-tube length for the correct reach. Because of my long legs I end up riding with the seatpost extended quite far--so even with a spacer stack + positive rise stem, I still have a pretty substantial saddle-bar drop. It sounds like the OP may have a similar body type based on the description of his bike setup (short stems / tall spacer stacks)


And again the geometry of the bike does not suit your body type.
You have been sold a bike that does not suit and then have had to make compromises to make it work.
Sounds like you would need a squarer shaped bike with a long HT. An example of a squarer shaped bike is the traditional shaped Colnago shape with a longer ST than TT.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Bizman said:


> Are there any? Is there a rule as far as how much + stem use to have? I know there are different ones, +10, +17. Right now I am running an 80 mm +6 but think I might like more rise but not more stretch, is +17 to much? Is +10 to much? Just wondering. Is there a point where it would be to much?


Keep in mind that the handlebar has effect on the fit as well because of the different reach/drop. One time I had to change the stem when I changed the handlebar.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

I like this chart. 
Stem Chart


----------



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

FTR said:


> 40mm of spacers and positive rise stem says that this bike does not work well for your body type.
> If you bought it new I would be taking it back and seeking a refund.


Thanks FTR for the insight, this is something that has had me wondering hence the statring of this thread. I think I said earlier the bike seems to fit pretty good overall but would like to have the reach just a little closer from the hoods. 

It does seem like alot of spacers though and then a + rise stem? Granted it is more of a race geomety that I have set up for more of a relaxed postion. Alot of the road bikes I have saw have the bars lower than the seat which I could do, but I think I would be hunched over. My seat and bars are pretty much level. 

When I was originaly fitted it was on a 55 which seemed to big, so the next size down was the 53 which is what I have. I am 5' 6" 30" inseam I have atleast 200 miles on the bike now, these things just make me wonder if this frame is right for me? I feel if I went with the 55 that I would be reaching even farthur?

Like the OP said maybe I just need to give it some time to stretch out a bit more on it?


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Bizman said:


> Thanks FTR for the insight, this is something that has had me wondering hence the statring of this thread. I think I said earlier the bike seems to fit pretty good overall but would like to have the reach just a little closer from the hoods.
> 
> It does seem like alot of spacers though and then a + rise stem? Granted it is more of a race geomety that I have set up for more of a relaxed postion. Alot of the road bikes I have saw have the bars lower than the seat which I could do, but I think I would be hunched over. My seat and bars are pretty much level.
> 
> ...


Bizman
That is sort of what I am saying I guess.
Why did they sell you a race geometry frame if you are not going to be able to ride it how it was intended (let alone race it)?
Maybe the size is right (top tube wise) but the head tube is obviously too short by a long way if you are set up as you are.
Look at it this way.
My Moots is a 58cm ETT and I know I can get lots of bikes with a similar ETT, but some bikes are simply too short in the HT for me to be able to set them up how I would want them.
Pinarello seems to be one of these. Very short HT and so not suited to me at all.
As much as I would like a Pinarello I cannot see the point in my buying one if I have to compromise the set up.


----------



## sherlock (Aug 6, 2011)

Bizman said:


> My seat and bars are pretty much level.


That just seems crazy to me. Unless you're horrifically inflexible, you should have at least a small drop between them. A slight hunch generally isn't a problem; you'll usually get used to it after a few rides if you're not used to it and the setup isn't wrong.

I may have missed this, but what bike is it?


----------



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

FTR said:


> Bizman
> That is sort of what I am saying I guess.
> Why did they sell you a race geometry frame if you are not going to be able to ride it how it was intended (let alone race it)?
> Maybe the size is right (top tube wise) but the head tube is obviously too short by a long way if you are set up as you are.
> ...


FTR,
This is the frame I liked and wanted and thought it would be lighter. I don't want to say I don't like the bike because I do and it is comfortable. I just had to wonder about all the spacers and the rule about that. ENVE says don't use any more than 50 mm of spacers so I do fall into that bracket.

I see what tou are saying about the different bikes and the way they fit. I am new to this and still trying to understand it all. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizman 
My seat and bars are pretty much level. 

(Quote Sherlock)That just seems crazy to me. Unless you're horrifically inflexible, you should have at least a small drop between them. A slight hunch generally isn't a problem; you'll usually get used to it after a few rides if you're not used to it and the setup isn't wrong.

I may have missed this, but what bike is it? (Quote)

Sherlock, Its not that I am inflexable, I just like the more upright position. I could drop a spacer or two out and see how it feels, maybe it wouldn't be that bad? The bike is a Lyskey R340 small with 72.5 deg head angle and 74 deg seat tube angle 53" top tube, 48" seat tube, head tube length 11.5 cm, fork rake 43 mm.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2011)

> And again the geometry of the bike does not suit your body type.
> You have been sold a bike that does not suit and then have had to make compromises to make it work.
> Sounds like you would need a squarer shaped bike with a long HT. An example of a squarer shaped bike is the traditional shaped Colnago shape with a longer ST than TT.


Interesting. None of the shops I visited had bikes w/ longer seat tubes than top tubes. Closest I could find to what I needed among several brands were usually 52/53 ST/TT respectively. The only bikes I found that had higher head tubes were usually awkward "compact geometry" frames with steeply sloped top-tubes, and more angled-back seat tubes, such that I wasn't able to reach the top-tube with my knees when riding (I felt this would be important for stability when descending/cornering at high speed). I'll admit part of the decision also came down to lower cost, and vanity/better looks. 

Thanks for the advice though. I'll keep this in mind in a year or two when I'll probably be looking for my second road bike -- [hopefully] with a bigger budget and [definitely] a better idea of what I want/need.



sherlock said:


> That just seems crazy to me. Unless you're horrifically inflexible, you should have at least a small drop between them. A slight hunch generally isn't a problem; you'll usually get used to it after a few rides if you're not used to it and the setup isn't wrong.


yeah, I didn't notice this before either. This means Bizman's frame is probably a closer fit to his body than mine -- according to that stem calculator linked earlier, even if he were to remove his spacers and flip the stem negative, he would _still_ have less saddle-bar drop than I currently have--I have just over 7cm bar drop w/ spacers, would be over 11cm if I removed my spacers/flipped the stem. 

That said, at this point I don't feel like I need to raise the bars any higher--better aerodynamics was the main reason I wanted a real road bike the first place. The bike I have now is _far_ less compromised than the bike it replaced--a hybrid bike on which I had already removed the spacers, cut the flat bar several cm narrower and added horizontal bar-ends to it (giving me roughly same position as the brake hoods now on the road bike). The hybrid worked great for me initially when I was only using a bike for short-distance commuting while carrying lots of cargo (which I still do) but was pretty sub-optimal for doing actual fitness/sport riding.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Saddle to bar drop is a futile measurement on it's own.
Only ignorants would use the same drop with a classic "Tour de France" drop bar as they would with a modern compact bar.


----------



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

I was down looking at the bike again and it does seem like the frame fits my body size from what I feel like on it. It looks like I could take out 2 of the 10 mm spacers (still leaving 2 ) and use the 80 mm +6 stem I am using now and still be OK (still a touch of a stretch to the hoods but I could probably adjust to that in time). Although if I were to do this, it would still be nice to try an 70 mm +6 stem to see what it feels like, "with and without the 20 mm of spacers". My hunch tells me it would be best without the spacers and use the 70 mm +6 stem. 

I think the LBS set this up without cutting the steerer tube to give me some time on it to see where things should be. If I get rid of 2 spacers and I am still comfortable on the bike, I believe I am getting more in the ball park to what FTR is saying. I did check the seat/bar drop and the bar is about 1/4" lower than the seat. 

I have been looking at some pictures of different bikes, and the bikes on the Lynskey website. It looks like most of the stems have 0 deg rise, or very slight - deg drop, most of the stems look to be in a level postion like the seat but in a lower postion than the seat. Not level with the seat.


----------

