not so slammed

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
NYCPrynne
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:39 pm

by NYCPrynne

seems like, when you see the bikes that various sites are posting, that stems are not so slammed....i get the feeling that various manufacturers got a bit too aggressive and lowered the stack so much that even many pros are requiring spacers.

form over function........

User avatar
TonyM
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:11 pm

by TonyM

Bikes ridden from Pros or new bikes reviewed from some various sites?

by Weenie


TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3538
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

NYCPrynne wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:06 am
seems like, when you see the bikes that various sites are posting, that stems are not so slammed....i get the feeling that various manufacturers got a bit too aggressive and lowered the stack so much that even many pros are requiring spacers.

form over function........

This is the opposite of what is actually happening. In the quest for aero gains, manufacturers are increasing stack heights and integrating horizontal bar/stems. Just look at the newest SuperSix vs the previous iteration. Look at the death of the H1 Madone.

No longer is the -6deg stem standard equipment. These integrated cockpits are usually around -14deg.
Last edited by TobinHatesYou on Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wheelbuilder
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am

by wheelbuilder

I was gonna guess that the OP was watching Toms Skujin's breakaway coverage today on his Emonda.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3538
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

H1 Treks and the Argon 18 Gallium Pro are the extremes. In "medium" or 54cm frames, the H1 Emonda SLR has 526mm stack and the Gallium Pro has a 520mm stack. Just about everything else is in the 540-555mm range for that size.

I had to go back to my replay of the stage to look at Toms's stem situation. Looks like his bearing cover + one spacer amounts to about 2cm of stack. He's 180cm/5'11" and rides a 56cm...it all seems pretty standard.

NYCPrynne
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 6:39 pm

by NYCPrynne

These are admittedly only a sampling, but I have to say that when I look at what has happened to stack heights over the past couple years, I don't think they are actually increasing. All of these pro bikes have at least one spacer....not a big deal, but I think that manufacturers went overboard with lowering the front end if the most fit riders need albeit small modifications for fit.....and I am glad these pros are at least trying to improve their fit and not following trends.

https://www.velonews.com/2019/07/bikes ... e2fff62af6

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/pro-bik ... e-outlier/

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/pro-bik ... rks-venge/

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/photo-g ... addict-rc/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tom ... 5-gallery/

spdntrxi
Posts: 2761
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:50 am
NYCPrynne wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:06 am
seems like, when you see the bikes that various sites are posting, that stems are not so slammed....i get the feeling that various manufacturers got a bit too aggressive and lowered the stack so much that even many pros are requiring spacers.

form over function........

This is the opposite of what is actually happening. In the quest for aero gains, manufacturers are increasing stack heights and integrating horizontal bar/stems. Just look at the newest SuperSix vs the previous iteration. Look at the death of the H1 Madone.

No longer is the -6deg stem standard equipment. These integrated cockpits are usually around -14deg.
yep my BMC is -15... my head tube is not even 10cm.. I'm using the low cap and 2 10 spacers.. I could go lower, but I'm not getting younger.
Last edited by spdntrxi on Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slammed
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:32 am

by Slammed

You also have to keep in mind that you don't really need a super low position for a hilly grand tour. I still think that bikes are too tall. I can't get in my preferred position without riding insanely long stems and small frames.

NordicSal
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:09 pm

by NordicSal

spdntrxi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:54 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:50 am
NYCPrynne wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:06 am
seems like, when you see the bikes that various sites are posting, that stems are not so slammed....i get the feeling that various manufacturers got a bit too aggressive and lowered the stack so much that even many pros are requiring spacers.

form over function........

This is the opposite of what is actually happening. In the quest for aero gains, manufacturers are increasing stack heights and integrating horizontal bar/stems. Just look at the newest SuperSix vs the previous iteration. Look at the death of the H1 Madone.

No longer is the -6deg stem standard equipment. These integrated cockpits are usually around -14deg.
yep my BMC is -15... my head tube is not even 10cm.. I'm using the low cap and 2 10 spacers.. I could go lower, but I'm not getting younger.
Haha seems ridiculous. My headtube is 24,5 cm hahaha. It's so ugly. 62 cm Domane. I think they are going in the wrong direction by having the headtubes too long and the seat tubes too short. It gets difficult to find a frame which fits well with long legs.

spdntrxi
Posts: 2761
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

NordicSal wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:54 pm
spdntrxi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:54 pm

yep my BMC is -15... my head tube is not even 10cm.. I'm using the low cap and 2 10 spacers.. I could go lower, but I'm not getting younger.
Haha seems ridiculous. My headtube is 24,5 cm hahaha. It's so ugly. 62 cm Domane. I think they are going in the wrong direction by having the headtubes too long and the seat tubes too short. It gets difficult to find a frame which fits well with long legs.
that's what sloping TT are for... tall headtubes and the seattube can be shorter..

NordicSal
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:09 pm

by NordicSal

spdntrxi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:00 pm
NordicSal wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:54 pm
spdntrxi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:54 pm

yep my BMC is -15... my head tube is not even 10cm.. I'm using the low cap and 2 10 spacers.. I could go lower, but I'm not getting younger.
Haha seems ridiculous. My headtube is 24,5 cm hahaha. It's so ugly. 62 cm Domane. I think they are going in the wrong direction by having the headtubes too long and the seat tubes too short. It gets difficult to find a frame which fits well with long legs.
that's what sloping TT are for... tall headtubes and the seattube can be shorter..
Yea, had I just known when I got my bike. My Domane looks fine on the pictures, but that's like a 56 cm. A 62 cm is ugly, same goes for the Domane and many other new bikes. Sucks to be tall in that department.

spdntrxi
Posts: 2761
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

big bikes are always ugly... 62cm you have no choice... just enjoy and ride. Small Madones are pretty ugly too.. so you are not alone.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3538
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

spdntrxi wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:58 pm
big bikes are always ugly... 62cm you have no choice... just enjoy and ride. Small Madones are pretty ugly too.. so you are not alone.

I'd probably just go ahead and say all Madones are ugly, but yes, 52-56cm bikes are the most balanced looking and have the least geometry compromises. The case can be made that people over 6'4"/193cm should be on bikes with "32in" wheels and longer wheelbases while retaining regular HT/ST angles. Just like how people 5'2"/155.5cm or under might want to consider 650b wheeled bikes.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8150
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

spdntrxi wrote:big bikes are always ugly... 62cm you have no choice... just enjoy and ride. Small Madones are pretty ugly too.. so you are not alone.
Hey! Not so. All depends on the build. Plus, with the wider tubes, deeper wheels, etc, I actually think larger bikes more often than not look better proportioned than the smaller bikes these days versus the days where all tubes were about an inch in diameter. And when you throw in super sloping top tubes with fat tube profiles and fat tires to begin with, the smallest bikes start looking more like mountain bikes than road bikes. The smallest Madones for example just look so weird to me. Like a child’s toy. Funsize.
As for overall proportional changes, it’s been long recognized that the smallest frames are the most difficult to build with sound geometry using 700c wheels etc. Hence the many attempts at small road bikes utilizing 650c wheels, in order not to have to resort to weird geometries etc. Huge bikes (and I’m talking really huge) may look gangley, but they’re not under the same geometry constraints as small bikes. They just end up looking kinda like a small bike with 650 wheels, except mansize.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


AJS914
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Severely sloping top tubes look horrible on larger bikes. I'm only a size large/56/57cm and I've had two bikes that didn't look quite right. One was a Parlee and one was a Time. My Colnago looks great to my eye with its gently sloping top tube. I also swapped the stem to match the slope of the top tube.

Image

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post