190mm Stem

[BroDeal]

It has come to this: Pros using ridiculous stems when they are shoe-horned onto frames made for fat, middle aged recreational riders.

 

[Ripper]

It has come to this: Pros using ridiculous stems when they are shoe-horned onto frames made for fat, middle aged recreational riders.

That is one ugly MF os a stem. Couldn't at least get it black

 

[ElChingon]

I though the 140 cm stem I used for a short while was big. Don't worry my real stem (110) was being painted and found the 140 in a friends parts bin, eventally felt like my shoulders were being yanked out of their sockets.

 

[Michele]

The power of marketing.
Back in the day they would have custom frames, althought still sometimes do; Purito had a custom frame when Katusha was sponsored by Ridley, made in Milan.

By the way, that's Kasheckin's stem.

 

[Fatclimber]

Damn that's gross.

Perfect for data cravers that need a laptop mounted to their bars.

 

[avanti]

Here is a 165 mm stem used by Kashechkin
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...-off-the-pro-equipment-season-for-2013/249495
Is there a photo of Kashechkin riding his bike? He is not very tall but perhaps he has long arms or likes a "superman" position.

 

[42x16ss]

Garmin have had to use some crazy stems to make their S series fit correctly (posted some photos in another thread) but this takes the cake

Surely a company as big as Specialized can do a custom frame for a team as big as Astana??

 

[42x16ss]

Found it! Sadly this isn't exactly a new trend....

Have you guys seen some of the crazy stuff the Garmin riders have had to do to get the position they want on their bikes this season???? Ryder Hesjedal has had to get some ridiculous length (and drop) stem just to get his hands as low as they were on his old Felt.

And here's Thor's (edit: check the setup on the R5 behind it!)

And Roger Hammond

Ok, Thor and Hammond aren't AS extreme as Ryder but still, surely that shouldn't be necessary. Especially for Hammond who is what, 5'8? These are pretty extreme setups even for pro's!

 

[Michele]

Garmin have had to use some crazy stems to make their S series fit correctly (posted some photos in another thread) but this takes the cake

Surely a company as big as Specialized can do a custom frame for a team as big as Astana??

As far as the internet goes, there's no rumors about Specialized having made any custom frame.

The only big brand which recently had a custom frame was Cannondale, which seems to have used an old Bennati's frameset for Sagan, althought it's a news since 2011/2012 so no idea about nowdays.

 

[Michele]

This is the best side photo I could find of him on hoods; looks like very long legs and arms compared to torso.

 

[Hawkwood]

It has come to this: Pros using ridiculous stems when they are shoe-horned onto frames made for fat, middle aged recreational riders.

I think this is the Specialized Tarmac, and he's using a size 54 or 56 frame, the 56 has a 565mm top-tube. In order to bring him down to a 130 stem they'd need to increase the top-tube length to 625mm, this is 25mm longer than the top-tube on a standard modern 60 or 61 frame, and I don't think a custom builder would look at it. Pre 2000 the standard top-tube on a 59, 60 or 61 frame was 585 (Indurain rode 59x59). In the 1990s it took me some considerable time and a trip to Belgium to find a 60x60 frameset, now most large frames are long including the Tarmac.

Looking at the geometry for the Tarmac I could get a saddle/bars drop of 120mm (Boonen runs with that) with a standard stem, or 150mm with a -17 stem. So I don't think the Tarmac is for fat, middle aged men.

On the matter of Specialized building him a custom frame, do the UCI's new (and daft) technical rules allow this anymore?

 

[Athame]

Found it! Sadly this isn't exactly a new trend....

Anyone know what bars those are on Ryder's bike?

 

[Race Radio]

Check out this Fred and his upturned stem

Sort too

 

[winkybiker]

Check out this Fred and his upturned stem

Sort too

I have one of those early BMC Pro Machines. They're fairly long and low compared to my C59. But still.

 

[Fatclimber]

Check out this Fred and his upturned stem
......

Must have been because of that hip issue...

 

[JimmyFingers]

I thought pros rode frames a couple of sizes too small for them for extra stiffness, hence the longer stems and seatposts

 

[dsut4392]

It has come to this: Pros using ridiculous stems when they are shoe-horned onto frames made for fat, middle aged recreational riders.

Dare I say that's not half as stupid as fat, middle aged recreational riders being led to believe they need custom made bikes that fit perfectly?
The fact that Kaschechkin has been riding for years on a setup like this is proof enough that 'frame fit' isn't half as important as lots of folks make out

 

[Suedehead]

Dare I say that's not half as stupid as fat, middle aged recreational riders being led to believe they need custom made bikes that fit perfectly?
The fact that Kaschechkin has been riding for years on a setup like this is proof enough that 'frame fit' isn't half as important as lots of folks make out

The stem stem from 2007, when Kashechkin rode a BMC, like the one Floyd used above. It's made by Rotor. It used to be Astana-blue.

 

[ustabe]

This is the best side photo I could find of him on hoods; looks like very long legs and arms compared to torso.

These guys look very normal. Well, wait a minute--this photo's from ten years ago.

I used to be a sort of apologist for these crazy dimensions, saying it's just an adaptation to STIs, flat-top bars, and tall head tubes. No longer.

 

[42x16ss]

Yep, nothing crazy about that position at all, yet Kashechkin has to run a second top tube for a stem. Ridiculous.

 

[ustabe]

Yep, nothing crazy about that position at all, yet Kashechkin has to run a second top tube for a stem. Ridiculous.

From the style of the Madone next to him, it must be 2006. Kashechkin and I are about the same height, 182 cm, with similar proportions. The BMC looks around 57, with a slightly long stem, perhaps a 13 or 14. It's very close to my setup. On the other hand, I'll bet the Tarmac is no larger than a 54.

What I'm saying is that even beyond allowing for flat-top handlebars and longer head tubes, pro bikes have been shrinking considerably since around 2009. The bars have been getting lower and narrower and reach has come in a bit. I wish someone knowledgeable would pipe in and explain why this is happening and why it's supposed to work.

 

[Hawkwood]

From the style of the Madone next to him, it must be 2006. Kashechkin and I are about the same height, 182 cm, with similar proportions. The BMC looks around 57, with a slightly long stem, perhaps a 13 or 14. It's very close to my setup. On the other hand, I'll bet the Tarmac is no larger than a 54.

What I'm saying is that even beyond allowing for flat-top handlebars and longer head tubes, pro bikes have been shrinking considerably since around 2009. The bars have been getting lower and narrower and reach has come in a bit. I wish someone knowledgeable would pipe in and explain why this is happening and why it's supposed to work.

Have a look at the following website http://gerard.cc/category/bike-equipment/ it includes this:

`Earlier this year I spoke about bike set-up, and how handlebars are being placed lower and lower these past half century. Of course evolution doesn’t go that fast, riders today are no more flexible than Merckx was. Rather than “regular” riders trying to get as low as some of today’s pros, it would be better for pros to go higher (like Merckx, not exactly a chopper in his hayday, was he)?

Of course this topic always leads to all sorts of macho nonsense like “slam that stem” and other (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) efforts to look “pro” when you’re not and remove any pleasure from riding a bike. This is not to say that a low position doesn’t work for some, only that people should look for their correct position, not their lowest position, and that in many cases – pro and “regular” – that correct position is higher than people often try to squeeze themselves into.'

The site has a photo of Cancellara sprinting on the hoods. The way pros use the bars is totally different now, some of this probably due to ergo levers.

Head-tubes have actually got shorter not longer. The Bianchi I raced on during the 90s had an effective head-tube of 24.5 cms for a 59 cm frame, over 20 cms now is seen as being for middle aged fatties! My first compact frame had a head-tube of 19 cms and I wondered why I was having problems getting down on the bars (despite being `middle aged' I still have good flexibility).

 

[ustabe]

Have a look at the following website http://gerard.cc/category/b ike-equipment/ it includes this:

I think Gerard overstates the case a bit. It's ironic that the team riding his bikes, Garmin-Sharp, are among the most egregious culprits for riding small frames with drop stems.

In the '70s Merckx was just doing his version of what some of the taller, lankier riders of the '50s, like Koblet and Baldini, were doing. I adopted it because I was uncomfortable on larger frames with longer top tubes and I had no trouble reaching the lower bar, having longer arms.

It appears that by the '80s this position was becoming standard for all pro riders, along with a wider handlebar and, often, longer cranks. Cyrille Guimard and Greg LeMond were extolling the virtues of the flat back, and top tubes on stock bikes were getting longer. I was riding a '79 Gios, through all this so I sat this trend out.

In the '90s the handlebars appear to be creeping slightly lower, but we started seeing adaptations for taller, lankier riders. That included head tubes extending far beyond the horizontal top tubes and long steerers filled out with fat shims. The long crank arm trend was tending to pull back. Also, compact geometries started to show up, but without changing the position significantly.

The early part of the '00s saw the '90s position being adapted to more compact geometries, new materials, and threadless, integrated headsets. I remember trying on a Trek 5000 for size. To approximate the position I had on the Gios I needed to size down 3 cm, shorten the stem by 2 cm, and, use all 2 cm of spacers under the downturned stem. I eventually bought a 58 cm Felt F5, sizing down 3 cm in the frame and 1 cm in the stem. At the hoods I was a bit lower and more extended than where I was on the Gios. The fit geometry of the carbon Felt F series is pretty much unchanged, but now this bike is considered aggressive for a stock bike, pretty much like a Trek H1.

The 2006 Madones introduced new frame building techniques, copped from Scott, an H1 geometry that was a bit shorter than the old series, and H2, which added 2-3 cm to the head tube. I'm riding a 58 cm H2 with a slammed 12 cm stem, sitting up a bit more than where I was on the Felt. Gerard Vroomen and Andy Pruitt would approve. I considered a 56, but I would have had to swap seat mast cap and the cranks and use a 14 cm stem to get where I wanted. And the toe overlap would have been ridiculous. I've told the Trek rep that an H1.5 would be perfect and we both know that's never going to happen.

My observations are that on civilian bikes top tubes have pulled back from the long '80s and '90s. In proportion to horizontal top tube, including the medium headset cone on the Madone and the threaded headset stack on my '80 Masi, head tube length is about the same. I agree partially, Hawkwood. At least on pro-specific geometries, head tubes have gotten shorter. I should stop complaining about H2 being too tall.

And many pros are sizing down 2-6 cm from where they would have been ten years ago, using extremely long stems or pulling in their reach to do it.

 

[Hawkwood]

I think Gerard overstates the case a bit. It's ironic that the team riding his bikes, Garmin-Sharp, are among the most egregious culprits for riding small frames with drop stems.

In the '70s Merckx was just doing his version of what some of the taller, lankier riders of the '50s, like Koblet and Baldini, were doing. I adopted it because I was uncomfortable on larger frames with longer top tubes and I had no trouble reaching the lower bar, having longer arms.

It appears that by the '80s this position was becoming standard for all pro riders, along with a wider handlebar and, often, longer cranks. Cyrille Guimard and Greg LeMond were extolling the virtues of the flat back, and top tubes on stock bikes were getting longer. I was riding a '79 Gios, through all this so I sat this trend out.

In the '90s the handlebars appear to be creeping slightly lower, but we started seeing adaptations for taller, lankier riders. That included head tubes extending far beyond the horizontal top tubes and long steerers filled out with fat shims. The long crank arm trend was tending to pull back. Also, compact geometries started to show up, but without changing the position significantly.

The early part of the '00s saw the '90s position being adapted to more compact geometries, new materials, and threadless, integrated headsets. I remember trying on a Trek 5000 for size. To approximate the position I had on the Gios I needed to size down 3 cm, shorten the stem by 2 cm, and, use all 2 cm of spacers under the downturned stem. I eventually bought a 58 cm Felt F5, sizing down 3 cm in the frame and 1 cm in the stem. At the hoods I was a bit lower and more extended than where I was on the Gios. The fit geometry of the carbon Felt F series is pretty much unchanged, but now this bike is considered aggressive for a stock bike, pretty much like a Trek H1.

The 2006 Madones introduced new frame building techniques, copped from Scott, an H1 geometry that was a bit shorter than the old series, and H2, which added 2-3 cm to the head tube. I'm riding a 58 cm H2 with a slammed 12 cm stem, sitting up a bit more than where I was on the Felt. Gerard Vroomen and Andy Pruitt would approve. I considered a 56, but I would have had to swap seat mast cap and the cranks and use a 14 cm stem to get where I wanted. And the toe overlap would have been ridiculous. I've told the Trek rep that an H1.5 would be perfect and we both know that's never going to happen.

My observations are that on civilian bikes top tubes have pulled back from the long '80s and '90s. In proportion to horizontal top tube, including the medium headset cone on the Madone and the threaded headset stack on my '80 Masi, head tube length is about the same. I agree partially, Hawkwood. At least on pro-specific geometries, head tubes have gotten shorter. I should stop complaining about H2 being too tall.

And many pros are sizing down 2-6 cm from where they would have been ten years ago, using extremely long stems or pulling in their reach to do it.

I had a neck injury in a cycle crash and this added to general wear and tear on my vertebrae means I can get low, but craning my neck to see hurts. I've just got a Merida with a long head-tube, 24 cm, and depending on whether I use a 84 or 73 degree stem I can get a saddle to handlebar drop from -2 cm to -12 cm. At least with the Merida I can get a good range of drops without having to have a great spacer stack. One sizing problem I have is that 50% of me is legs, i.e. my inseam is 93 cm to a height of 186 cm, and I think this compromises my reach.

 

[BroDeal]

From the style of the Madone next to him, it must be 2006. Kashechkin and I are about the same height, 182 cm, with similar proportions. The BMC looks around 57, with a slightly long stem, perhaps a 13 or 14. It's very close to my setup. On the other hand, I'll bet the Tarmac is no larger than a 54.

What I'm saying is that even beyond allowing for flat-top handlebars and longer head tubes, pro bikes have been shrinking considerably since around 2009. The bars have been getting lower and narrower and reach has come in a bit. I wish someone knowledgeable would pipe in and explain why this is happening and why it's supposed to work.

I think the explanation is the industry made a conscious decision to make head tubes longer to accomodate the middle-aged fatty. This might extend to decreasing top tube size as well. The poor pros using bikes from companies that have done this are forced to use tiny frames to get low enough.

Trek still makes frames with different head tube lengths. I think Specialized for a season or two had one of their top frames available with two sizes of head tube, sort of racer length and club length. The short, racer length was discontinued, leaving anyone who wants a normal length head tube SOL.

Then was something I heard about Cervelo a while back. I think it was discussed on Velocipede Salon. Cervelo had crappy geometry and a single size was the only one that handled decently so pretty much every pro on their sponsored team used that single size, which was like a 54.