190mm Stem

[avanti]

Head tube length alone is not a good guide to sizing a bike - one must consider the stack height (BB to top of HT). I recently bought a bike with a shorter head tube but increased stack height than my previous bike.

 

[BroDeal]

A pic of Hesjedal's current bike.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=129146

 

[Granville57]

A pic of Hesjedal's current bike.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=129146

I don't see the pic, and the image-link seems to require a log-in.

 

[BroDeal]

I don't see the pic, and the image-link seems to require a log-in.

Sucks to be you then. For some reason people on the Paceline do not seem to know how to hot link pics.

 

[Granville57]

Sucks to be you then.

I just assumed that Ryder's stem length had exceeded the allowable image width.


What Ryder really needs is extra room for a few more buttons.

 

[ustabe]

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.

That is long, and it can especially be a problem if your arms aren't similarly long. I'm almost there (89.5 cm and 182 or 183), but long arms mitigate. For you the tall head tube is the way to go.

 

[ustabe]

What Ryder really needs is extra room for a few more buttons.

Some of my customers complain that they run out of real estate on their handlebars, for computers, i-phones, lights, reflectors, bells, tri-bars, etc.. I'll just recommend longer stems. I'm sure they'll like that.

 

[ustabe]

Head tube length alone is not a good guide to sizing a bike - one must consider the stack height (BB to top of HT). I recently bought a bike with a shorter head tube but increased stack height than my previous bike.

We know that. It's just that many brands still don't put stack and reach in their charts, so we assume the angles and BB drops are pretty close, use HTT and HT, and hope it's close enough.

 

[ustabe]

Sucks to be you then. For some reason people on the Paceline do not seem to know how to hot link pics.

It's funny. Hesjedal uses a slammed 73 degree stem to lower the bar, then he tilts the bar up, presumably to make it easier to reach. That angles the drops so you have to **** the wrists to use them.

Well, we already discussed how sprinting is now done on the hoods.

Ryder, here's my suggestion. Put a spacer under that stem, level the top of the bar, and raise the hoods so they're level like you like them. Then bring in the reach of the levers if you have to.

I feel better now.

 

[Captain Serious]

....any excuse to post one of my favourite photos. Ha

For the kiddies out there reading this (even though it's very slightly off topic): ya don't need low bars and/or a whopping long stem to get aero. Old Uncle Rog in this pic barely has his bars any lower than his saddle, yet check out how low his upper body is. And if ya can't ride with your arms bent, then you might wanna check out your weight balance on the saddle.

And to the other "cool kids" who say they need low bars for a more powerful sprint: such dudes in them days who wanted that often used deep drops.

So there. "Prove me wrong, Silent Bob" -- Homer The Great, 2003

 

[BroDeal]

And to the other "cool kids" who say they need low bars for a more powerful sprint: such dudes in them days who wanted that often used deep drops.

So there. "Prove me wrong, Silent Bob" -- Homer The Great, 2003

From a time when choosing a quality race frame meant choosing between ten plus sizes or having a custom frame made, not choosing between five sizes made for the MS150.

 

[42x16ss]

From a time when choosing a quality race frame meant choosing between ten plus sizes or having a custom frame made, not choosing between five sizes made for the MS150.

Stop and look at RDV's frame there. The headtube is a couple of degrees steeper than Ryder's and is made up for by the rake in the fork. This makes the effective TT length that little bit more, making the stem start *drumroll* further away from the body! Whence the need for a shorter stem and less saddle to bar drop.

Because stiffness is such a major marketing term now, Cervelo and others are using straight forks, requiring more angled head tubes to remove the harshness and cramping the rider.

 

[dsut4392]

It's funny. Hesjedal uses a slammed 73 degree stem to lower the bar, then he tilts the bar up, presumably to make it easier to reach. That angles the drops so you have to **** the wrists to use them.

Well, we already discussed how sprinting is now done on the hoods.

Ryder, here's my suggestion. Put a spacer under that stem, level the top of the bar, and raise the hoods so they're level like you like them. Then bring in the reach of the levers if you have to.

I feel better now.

If only you had told him earlier he might have won a grand tour already...oh wait...

 

[Captain Serious]

Because stiffness is such a major marketing term now, Cervelo and others are using straight forks, requiring more angled head tubes to remove the harshness and cramping the rider.

The way I heard the conspiracy theory was thus:

When aluminium frames took over, the chain stays eventually had to be shortened to make them effectively stronger, coz so many were breaking, yet we were told it was to make the rear stiffer. The shorter wheelbase reduced stability, hence the slacker head tubes.

 

[dsut4392]

Stop and look at RDV's frame there. The headtube is a couple of degrees steeper than Ryder's and is made up for by the rake in the fork. This makes the effective TT length that little bit more, making the stem start *drumroll* further away from the body! Whence the need for a shorter stem and less saddle to bar drop.

Because stiffness is such a major marketing term now, Cervelo and others are using straight forks, requiring more angled head tubes to remove the harshness and cramping the rider.

You can reliably pick a difference in HTA of a couple of degrees from pictures taken at different angles with no known verticals? When one bike is a 'compact' and the other is 'standard' geometry, and one has a straight fork and the other curved? If so, you're doing better than I.

If anything, to me the HTA looks similar, but the STA looks steeper on Ryder's bike, which would also render the ETT to be shorter, accounting for the need for a longer stem.

Who out there cares enough to find the geometry charts?

 

[avanti]

.....................
Because stiffness is such a major marketing term now, Cervelo and others are using straight forks, requiring more angled head tubes to remove the harshness and cramping the rider.

Straight forks can be straight from the crown to the drop-outs but they are still angled with respect to the steerer (that together with the head tube angle provides rake and trail). Otherwise you would not have a stable bike

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

Because stiffness is such a major marketing term now, Cervelo and others are using straight forks, requiring more angled head tubes to remove the harshness and cramping the rider.

In some instances there's more to stiffness than just as a marketing catch phrase. You can thank Ernesto Colnago and Giuseppe Saronni for straight blade forks. Giuseppe was originally racing on a Super before the Master, which had curved fork blades, just like the rest of the bikes from that era. He complained that the Super was too flimsy, so shaped tubing and straight blade forks were the result and it's the most copied bit of design in the industry for good reason, it works, not just with steel but every material. It's not all smoke and mirrors despite the horrible track record the marketeers have in this industry.

 

[42x16ss]

You can reliably pick a difference in HTA of a couple of degrees from pictures taken at different angles with no known verticals? When one bike is a 'compact' and the other is 'standard' geometry, and one has a straight fork and the other curved? If so, you're doing better than I.

If anything, to me the HTA looks similar, but the STA looks steeper on Ryder's bike, which would also render the ETT to be shorter, accounting for the need for a longer stem.

Who out there cares enough to find the geometry charts?

It's nothing too drastic but take the time to look at a few bikes from this era and compare them to now, it is a change that's been made over the years.

One other thing is that brake hoods have come up a long way since flat top bars have been introduced. When hoods were sitting lower on the bars and the tops were pointing down riders had their hands much lower than the tops of the bars.

Look at where Eddy's hoods are compared to his saddle, there's a few extra cm of drop right there.

 

[42x16ss]

Straight forks can be straight from the crown to the drop-outs but they are still angled with respect to the steerer (that together with the head tube angle provides rake and trail). Otherwise you would not have a stable bike

Of course, the bike would be a death trap otherwise! It might be my imagination but it looks like they still have less rake than a curved fork.

 

[42x16ss]

....any excuse to post one of my favourite photos. Ha

For the kiddies out there reading this (even though it's very slightly off topic): ya don't need low bars and/or a whopping long stem to get aero. Old Uncle Rog in this pic barely has his bars any lower than his saddle, yet check out how low his upper body is. And if ya can't ride with your arms bent, then you might wanna check out your weight balance on the saddle.

And to the other "cool kids" who say they need low bars for a more powerful sprint: such dudes in them days who wanted that often used deep drops.

So there. "Prove me wrong, Silent Bob" -- Homer The Great, 2003

Look at Hesjedal below:

His position isn't that different to Roger's. Yes Hesjedal is taller and De Vlaeminck's posture is pretty much perfect but there isn't that much of a difference. What's changed?

I don't mean to be beating a dead horse but this thread has really stirred my curiousity

 

[dsut4392]

It's nothing too drastic but take the time to look at a few bikes from this era and compare them to now, it is a change that's been made over the years.

One other thing is that brake hoods have come up a long way since flat top bars have been introduced. When hoods were sitting lower on the bars and the tops were pointing down riders had their hands much lower than the tops of the bars.

Look at where Eddy's hoods are compared to his saddle, there's a few extra cm of drop right there.

Not disputing the change in drop to the tops or changes in positioning at all, just saying that I don't think a change in HTA is obvious between the two pictures posted in the thread.

FWIW, if you made a brand new 'crabon' bike with contact points in the exact same position as Eddy or Roger's bike but gave it a sloping TT, you would get threads about how the massive head tube and shallow drop was built for middle-aged fatties.

Comparing Ryder's bike to Eddy or Roger's, the reach and drop to the tops are significantly greater on the new bike, but the difference on the hoods and drops is less. I'm not old enough to have watched racing 'back in the day' [my earliest cycle race memories are of Phil Anderson in the early '80s, perhaps not coincidentally the only TV coverage of cycling here in Oz at the time], but it seems like riders spend much less time on the tops, much more time on the hoods, and a little less time in the drops compared to what they used to.

 

[42x16ss]

Not disputing the change in drop to the tops or changes in positioning at all, just saying that I don't think a change in HTA is obvious between the two pictures posted in the thread.

FWIW, if you made a brand new 'crabon' bike with contact points in the exact same position as Eddy or Roger's bike but gave it a sloping TT, you would get threads about how the massive head tube and shallow drop was built for middle-aged fatties.

Comparing Ryder's bike to Eddy or Roger's, the reach and drop to the tops are significantly greater on the new bike, but the difference on the hoods and drops is less. I'm not old enough to have watched racing 'back in the day' [my earliest cycle race memories are of Phil Anderson in the early '80s, perhaps not coincidentally the only TV coverage of cycling here in Oz at the time], but it seems like riders spend much less time on the tops, much more time on the hoods, and a little less time in the drops compared to what they used to.

I think that last paragraph may have nailed it. How much of the long and low stem craze is due to changes in bar shape? Tops are shorter and flatter and drops are shallower. So to keep the same hood position with these bars, it looks like a longer, lower stem is needed. Compare the shape of Eddy and Roger's bars to Ryder's, this may be a lot of the reason.

 

[ustabe]

Some observations.

Frame angles haven't changed a whole lot since the mid-70s. Gioses exported to the US were getting steep once Alfredo discovered the US market, but these bikes were quite different from the ones DeVlaeminck rode. Bottom brackets have come up a couple millimeters.

Straight fork blades have just as much offset as curved ones. Offsets have shortened a couple millimeters, to the effect of sharpening up the cornering, especially on Italian and French bikes.

Handlebar shape is part of the story. The arm length of the rider is part of the story. Ryder Hesjedal uses more bar drop than Mark Cavendish. Francesco Moser used more bar drop than Roger DeVlaeminck; both were pretty darned aero.

And, looking at top tubes and head tubes (or reach and stack), not much has changed since the 70s. But you have to size down a centimeter or two (or measure the old bike center-to-center instead of center-to-top).

But something crazy is going on and I'm not sure it's to the best effect. Meanwhile, a handful of pro riders are still tweaking what we used to call the "Belgian fit" and getting some results with it.

 

[Captain Serious]

Look at Hesjedal below:

His position isn't that different to Roger's. Yes Hesjedal is taller and De Vlaeminck's posture is pretty much perfect but there isn't that much of a difference. What's changed?

That's pretty much my point (and this photo helps it because he's riding with his arms bent): I'm sure Hesjedal could ride with the exact same position but with much higher bars; it's just that his elbows would obviously be bent more, like De Vlaeminck's are. Eh, maybe he couldn't (what do I know? ), but I bet he could.

In other words, I'd bet he, and many other riders, don't need their bars so low.

Maybe other rides can't ride with their arms bent for very long, for what ever reason (too much weight on their hands, probably), so they like their bars low to allow them to ride aero with their arms straight.

However, with bars so low, he obviously loses the option of riding more upright during 'relaxing' moments in races.

I don't mean to be beating a dead horse but this thread has really stirred my curiousity

Ha, it's just a bit 'o fun, and it sure beats working, ha

 

[dsut4392]

That's pretty much my point (and this photo helps it because he's riding with his arms bent): I'm sure Hesjedal could ride with the exact same position but with much higher bars; it's just that his elbows would obviously be bent more, like De Vlaeminck's are. Eh, maybe he couldn't (what do I know? ), but I bet he could.

In other words, I'd bet he, and many other riders, don't need their bars so low.

Maybe other rides can't ride with their arms bent for very long, for what ever reason (too much weight on their hands, probably), so they like their bars low to allow them to ride aero with their arms straight.

However, with bars so low, he obviously loses the option of riding more upright during 'relaxing' moments in races.

Ha, it's just a bit 'o fun, and it sure beats working, ha

That pretty much agrees with my thinking, except for the "too much weight on their hands, probably" bit. The amount of weight on your hands depends on how hard you're riding. At what point in your power output range from
-----just riding along>>>>>tempo>>>>>forcing
do you choose to set the neutral balance (sprinting left off the chart since weight distribution changes when you stand up)?

These guys are choosing to use long stems and lots of saddle-bar drop, presumably to make themselves more comfortable. If you run a low bar, you can take more weight on your arms "just riding along" and still stay relatively comfortable while maintaining an aero position - the option of riding more upright becomes less necessary. When the road turns upwards, or you put the hammer down, you get closer to neutral balance.