Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
As with any aspect of bike fit, stack or ride height preference is very personal. There is no absolute correct bar height for a particular bike type, or a particular rider height, though there are of course distinct trends to be observed.
At one end of the spectrum, your World Cup XC racer will go to extremes to get a low bar position. Having the front end very low helps to keep the front wheel down on steep inclines, allowing a rider to keep laying down the power without fear of looping out. Slamming the stem is something of a given, and many opt to run negative offset stems. Some even run their handlebar upside down - turning would-be-rise into yet more drop.
![photo]()
At the other end of the spectrum, those of us on longer travel trail bikes look to optimize the cockpit height for control while descending. As a shorter rider (163cm or 5ft 3.5"), I tend to prefer a shorter stack height, and will often end up slamming the stem to the headset with just a 20mm riser bar. That helps me keep weight over the front wheel while descending, something that I find particularly helpful when riding flat, unsupported corners. If the bar is too high, I feel too disconnected from what's happening at the contact patch.
![photo]()
Taller riders however, tend to prefer to run their bar much higher. Our Tech Editor, Seb Stott, is a prime example of that. At 191 cm tall (6 ft 3"), Seb will look to upgrade most test bikes with a 40mm rise bar. He explains in this deep dive that while an important fit number like the reach can range by something like 19% over a brand's S-XXL size range, for the same model, the stack height will range by as little as 4%.
![16.04.21. Pinkbike Forest of Dean Rider Seb Stott. PIC Andy Lloyd www.andylloyd.photography]()
While not ideal, it's far from the end of the world given that effective stack height is easily adjusted (within the range permissible by the headtube length and the fork steerer length). That said, there are two main ways to skin this particular cat. If you feel the effective stack height is too low, you can either switch out the bar for a higher rise option, or you can experiment with more spacers underneath your stem. Both options increase your effective stack height, but the latter stands to shorten reach more than the former. For a 65° head angle, an additional 10mm spacer underneath your stem will reduce reach by around 4mm.
So, I'm interested... how do you folks go about changing the effective stack height on your bike? Do you prefer to change out the bar for a different rise option, or do you simply change the spacers under your stem? If it's the latter, do you do that because you also feel the need to alter the bike's effective reach, or do you choose this option because it's faster, easier, and cheaper?
At one end of the spectrum, your World Cup XC racer will go to extremes to get a low bar position. Having the front end very low helps to keep the front wheel down on steep inclines, allowing a rider to keep laying down the power without fear of looping out. Slamming the stem is something of a given, and many opt to run negative offset stems. Some even run their handlebar upside down - turning would-be-rise into yet more drop.
For the 2019 XCO World Cup in Vallnord, Sam Gaze ran a 130mm stem with a 24 degree negative offset (drop) on his Specialized Epic
At the other end of the spectrum, those of us on longer travel trail bikes look to optimize the cockpit height for control while descending. As a shorter rider (163cm or 5ft 3.5"), I tend to prefer a shorter stack height, and will often end up slamming the stem to the headset with just a 20mm riser bar. That helps me keep weight over the front wheel while descending, something that I find particularly helpful when riding flat, unsupported corners. If the bar is too high, I feel too disconnected from what's happening at the contact patch.
Craig Evans runs a 50mm rise Burgtec bar on his Airdrop Edit enduro bike
Taller riders however, tend to prefer to run their bar much higher. Our Tech Editor, Seb Stott, is a prime example of that. At 191 cm tall (6 ft 3"), Seb will look to upgrade most test bikes with a 40mm rise bar. He explains in this deep dive that while an important fit number like the reach can range by something like 19% over a brand's S-XXL size range, for the same model, the stack height will range by as little as 4%.
While not ideal, it's far from the end of the world given that effective stack height is easily adjusted (within the range permissible by the headtube length and the fork steerer length). That said, there are two main ways to skin this particular cat. If you feel the effective stack height is too low, you can either switch out the bar for a higher rise option, or you can experiment with more spacers underneath your stem. Both options increase your effective stack height, but the latter stands to shorten reach more than the former. For a 65° head angle, an additional 10mm spacer underneath your stem will reduce reach by around 4mm.
So, I'm interested... how do you folks go about changing the effective stack height on your bike? Do you prefer to change out the bar for a different rise option, or do you simply change the spacers under your stem? If it's the latter, do you do that because you also feel the need to alter the bike's effective reach, or do you choose this option because it's faster, easier, and cheaper?
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I'm tall, and almost every bike's stack height is too low for me, so I'm using a combination of spacers, stems, and bars to get the height I need.
So go on, frame designers, make your lives easier with a stronger frame shape that gives people what they want.
Same concept with dirtbikes - general rule of thumb, height plays ZERO role in handlebar height if focused on handling/performance, there is currently a factory sponsored pro who is 6-6 racing SX who runs std. bars if not lower than typical.
I want a few spacers above and below my stem so I can adjust height easily, but typically combine this with a 20mm riser bar. No, I do not want to buy multiple $180 handlebars to dial in my desired ride height.
In short > Bar rise gets me in the ballpark, and stem spacers allow fine tuning that’s cheap and easy.
You say you can't be as "active" like it's a fact - there are benefits to low bars.
Concepts are easier to understand via exaggerated thought experiments, so let's try one. Imagine two riders of normal proportions, but with extreme height differences: for example, let's compare these Olympic athletes at 4'6" and 6'11". I'm sure it's obvious the former will want a lower bar than the latter! Same principle applies to riders within the typical range of rider heights.
And at 6'4", I defenetly added a 1.5" riser to my dirtbike.
Exactly! Other than size S ,ost frame sizes need taller head tubes. The biggest (XL and XXL) need more stack and the same, or more, reach, meaning a longer head tube AND longer top and down tubes.
If focused on comfort, they can help.
Hell no.
I ride medium with FSA-SL-K Drop stem and Canecreek Slamset headset to drop my bar below headtube level.
There is no safety concern to raise the bar. But bar strike and in my case, even stem hitting the frame is an issue to lower the bar below headtube's top bearing.
In short, keep it low only make it inconvenient to some people. But making it too tall create safety hazard for people that need lower bar.
Now with that said I don't completely disagree - there are different sports, but my point was, taller riders don't adopt any different position. I've actually tried to make my MTB and Moto very sim, at 6-4 I am on a S4 Spec with super low bars on the moto that has nothing to do with acceleration and more to do with cornering.
• Your set-up is pretty XC. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but please note that in my first comment I mentioned this doesn't apply to XC racers.
• Your frames are size Medium. The L and XL riders are the ones who seem to be having most of the trouble with low stack frames.
• You're from Louisiana. Perhaps your descents are not as steep or sustained as those of others in this thread.
• Despite your use of a sharply negative rise stem, your bar is +5 mm. A flat bar wouldn't change the problem of interference between the controls and the top-tube, but it would expand your stem options a little.
• Speaking of your controls, they're angled downward considerably more than average.
None of these things are negatives and I'm not meaning to dismiss your needs. My point is that this discussion isn't really aimed at your frame size or what I presume to be your riding style and terrain - and even within that demographic, your brake and shifter set-up is a bit of an outlier.
Perhaps we should be more clear in this discussion whether we're on team "more stack for everyone", team "more stack for large riders", or the nuanced, but not very snappily named, team "greater range of stack with an expansion at both ends of the spectrum".
"Marginal" is a great word here, because we're not talking about whether moto bars are taller or shorter than MTB bars, we're talking about whether high performance riders on MTB's and moto's want to marginally raise or lower their bars. To your point, competitive moto racers don't tend to want to raise their bars. In MTB, the top riders typically do.
Also vindicated that someone else noticed that reach numbers vary a lot between sizes, but stack doesn't really; and it seems like most companies are still in the mindset that it's better to keep stack low in case someone sizes up, rather than designing XL bikes for XL people.
For the record, bar rise is my first choice, but selection of bars that have enough rise is limited to the point that I run a bunch of spacers as well, even though most frames have too short of reach already.
Theo Galy: 1080mm
Kenta Gallagher: 1060mm
Isabeau Courdurier: 1050mm
Sam Hill: 1042mm
Mitch Ropelato: 1040mm
Cecile Ravanel: 1060mm
Iago Garay: 1070mm
Jesse Melamed: 1065mm
Remi Gauvin: 1067mm
Jerome Clementz: 1040mm
Matt Simmonds: 1080mm
Ines Thoma: 1100mm
Isabeau is fairly short - very sim bar height to the rest.....
The middle of Specialized's recommended height range for S4 is 5'11". At 6'4", you most closely align with their recommendation at S6 (which is centered on 6'5"). That's not to say the Specialized - or any - geometry chart recommendation is intrinsically correct for all riders, all bikes, or even their own bikes, but it's a good reflection of common preferences.
Your set-up is significantly different from that of most riders. To be fair, popular set-ups change over time - just look at the janky bikes we rode a couple decades ago - bar saddle-to-bar drop has been fairly constant for a long time within a given riding style (i.e. comparing "all-mountain" or "gravity priority" riding styles over time). The only two bikes shown in your photo gallery are very XC, so perhaps your riding style isn't exactly what most here are talking about, and perhaps you have outlier preferences within that edge case demographic. That's not to say you're wrong or your opinion isn't valid, I just hope you can recognize that your experiences may not align well with those of most folks in this discussion, which leads to your preferences not aligning with those of most folks here.
An additional consideration when comparing bikes to motos: If we're talking about gravity-priority bike design, the average ground slope during the situations we prioritize is downward, whereas the average ground slop for a moto is not.
Being 6'2" I suddenly find myself right between the L and XL. I don't mind going 15mm short, but not a fan of going even 5mm too long.
But hey, it works, and at least there's a few solid bikes that fit, so life is good.
Overall, I'm just against the idea that raising the headtube (and thus frame stack) universally is the safe answer.
Raising the bar via spacers or stem or bar rise is safe.
Raising the frame stack height can cause safety hazard for people who use the same frame but with bar lower than the head tube.
Still, I agree that on average, L and XL bike riders need bar raised, not lowered so your proposed increased frame stack height make sense. But perhaps just leave S and M geometry alone for people who need the bar low?
My actual riding bike has a more level levers (approx 50 degree from vertical) and lower handlebar than bike I sold in my gallery.
But still, thank you for making all the good comments.
This raises the questions: Are small riders being forced into excessive bar height due to the packaging constraints of 29" wheels and generous suspension travel, or are they living the high-stack dream? Are XL+ riders being forced to ride too low because designers insufficiently accommodate the needs of these outliers on the tall end?
The only thing about which I'm certain is I hear a lot more complaints from tall riders who want more stack than small riders who want less.
The only opinion I had was height is not as big of a factor as folks make it out to be. Like I said in my first post, I do think stack is low ACROSS THE BOARD, but not just for tall guys....and throwing a tall bar and a bunch of spacers at a problem is a fools errand when hand height is typically less than an inch between people.
Remember, on a moto you are accelerating often, which has a sim effect to going downhill. I agree - it's not a perfect comparison but my point stands, tall riders ride setups virtually identical to short riders and it works for guys getting paid big bucks, Benny Bloss at 6-6 vs a guy like Charmichael at 5-5, bar height, seat height and general setup very close, just like those bar heights I posted above.
3 10mm spacers, flat bar and 50mm stem is a very close bar position to no spacers, 30mm bar and a 40mm stem. Adjusting the roll of the bar and you’d likely overlap.
And my 6’6” riding buddies who ride trail would strongly disagree. If you can’t have your spine straight and your elbows bent, you’re in a set up for injury.
I strongly disagree. I find hand height varies about half the person's heigh. I'm about 6" taller than my wife, and my hand sits about 3" above hers.
In addition, as has already been mentioned, we don't sit on our bikes with our hands at our sides. When my wife and I both raise our arms to a 45* angle our hand-height difference expands because my shoulder sits higher than her's.
I think if you look back from the dawn of MTB shorter and average MTB'ers have always been living the high stack dream comparatively. (though very short XC riders do struggle with big wheels and low enough stack as can be seen on many WCXC setups) Before riser bars I used to struggle to get my bars up to the correct height VS my seat height. I'd have the quill stem above the min insertion point and still not get the bars high enough. Even the first ahead stems you'd go down to the shop and have zero or like 5 degree rise and that was it unless you wanted a ridiculously high rise beachcruiser stem and for quite a while you got NO spacers/steerer to work with! I'd always have to buy new forks just so I could cut my own steerer tube so I could even add enough spacers. (of course, a huge struggle back then was also with slack seat tube angles moving a person so far back over the rear wheel and away from their bars)
NOW, for sure. As geometry has changed over the years and parts availability became overwhelming I've set up a bike or two that ended up too high and I didn't have enough weight on the front wheel. (AND, I've done a LOT of experimenting... some very dumb setups now and then. But fun to try! And some of those dumb set ups rode really good!!)
Anyway, I know there are quite a few bikes that I have passed over because of having short stack heights, but also a few now and then I've passed over for too much stack height. So the good thing is there are choices out there for almost everyone these days.
Definitely! I'm sure you remember when everything had a 71° head-tube angle, 73° seat-tube angle, and 17" chainstays - a few weirdos would explore the outer reaches of geometry with a 70.75° head-tube angle or 17.25" chainstays. Life's good now with almost every combination of travel and geometry available, and convergent evolution has confined kinematics to a sensible range.
You are oversimplifying to the point you are confusing yourself, I guess, suggesting DH riding causes shock extensions and not compression is silly along with a dirtbike accelerating hitting bumps, woops, etc. very much compresses a fork, yes, even while accelerating.
With all that said, rider height on a MX does not massively influence bar height - that was my point.
Everything I said after that was to help you see how your mental model is correct for motos, but backwards for bikes.
DH riding on a MTB absolutely has an element of acceleration.
I honestly think you are over your ski's on this one - buy a moto and get back to me, this is not a paper exercise accelerating on a smooth service in an ideal state.
• Accelerating on a moto and ascending on a bike are similar because they both produce a force vector toward the rear, which causes rearward weight shift and rearward chassis pitch (shock compression and fork extension), which favour a low front end.
• Decelerating on a moto and descending on a bike (with braking to control speed) are similar because they both produce a force vector toward the front, which causes forward weight shift and forward chassis pitch (shock extension and fork compression), which favour a high front end.
Why are we talking about MX? This guys knows like 2 things about hard enduro though. And he’s tall.
www.dirtrider.com/story/racing/factory-off-road-racebikes-taddy-blazusiak-2023-gasgas-ec-300
The Factory Racing triple clamps are adjustable between 20mm and 22mm offset. Blazusiak experiments with fork height to get the ride he wants depending on the terrain and weather.Shan Moore
Just like the priority on the geometry and kinematics of the medium/ large frame!!
So I guess MX "racing" IDK, but DH I still think for every tall person you can find with a low set up there are 100 with a tall set up. (and still seems that's true of MX for the non racers I see all the time while out riding)
Generally speaking, outside of XC riding. Most riders skew their mountain bike setup on the deciding side where a taller set up is the norm? Feels like this is more about you trying to justify your own setup and not so much about what the majority of tall riders setups are like??? (Maybe that could be a new Pinkbike poll!!)
Naturally, the rider will shift their body to partially compensate, the terrain still extends and compresses the suspension elements, spring and damper properties can be tuned to compensate ... I'm just talking about the general principle, which holds true when averaged over time for the conditions mentioned above.
Descending on a DH track requires maintaining speed and momentum and generally doesn't consist of consistent heavy braking (relative to a moto) and has a number of accelerations throughout the run.
There may be chassis pitch but there is constantly on a dirtbike also, hitting woops, g-outs, etc. MTB shocks are under constant compression, no sure where you get this 'extension nonsense".
But the lower (within reason) I went with my bars the better and better the bike handled. It's a common theme these days in the moto world:
enduro21.com/en/products-reviews/latest/first-look-astra-handlebars-can-these-bars-help-you-ride-better
With the ADV and trail crowd, taller setups are common for comfort. If you prioritize handling, they are detrimental.
Also wondering if a higher bar might also reduce reach if it is rolled/ angled towards the rider?
(Not sure if there is a different name for this type „effective reach“ vs „frame reach“ which is normally listed.)
All this talk of ‘women-specific’ geometry has died a death as it turned out to be a load of nonsense.
Also, the majority of us are not racing and don't spend that much time at race pace so don't always benefit from copying our setup from racers. So even though it's relevant, it's not always the target.
Motorcycles are not offered in different SIZES. So it doesn't make sense to just say the stock low setup is best for handling as a blanket statement and that anything else is detrimental. What's right for the 5'10" 185lb rider the bike was designed for is not automatically right for a 6'3" 250lb rider, or a 5'3" 110lb rider. (and I get that you're saying it should be right for everyone no matter their size. I just don't agree...)
As far as your ADV statement. that is what most dirtbike guys tell ADV riders. But very few ADV riders can ride their ADV bikes like they are dirtbikes. (and let's be honest, most dirtbike riders could not ride a big ADV bike like it was a little dirtbike either! Though for sure some can!) So it's not always a relevant statement or concern. Again, most moto riders aren't racing. And even if SX/MX racers are mostly low set ups Dakar racers don't seem to be?
And then mountain bikes are offered in sizes, BUT those sizes greatly differ between brands. So thinking that the stock set up is automatically best for handling doesn't make sense because stock on one bike is totally different than stock on another bike. So you might find that stock, or lower than stock is perfect on one bike. But on another brand it might not work well at all...
IMO there are just too many variables to make blanket statements about what is best for everyone. Even if we get what the average setup is for a given discipline there are always going to be high-performing outliers that don't fit the average.
"Cockpit length" might be confused with stem + handlebar, "effective top-tube" is measured horizontally to the centre of the seat-tube, "effective reach" is problematic because it adds or changes four parameters to the reach dimension (measuring to the seat-tube, saddle position, actual saddle height, and bar + stem), "effective effective top-tube" still adds several fewer and sounds silly ...
I've been calling it "butt to bar" for the past few years. Not much ambiguity there!
But fully agree, bar to butt is very helpful when comparing/setting up different bikes with different geometry and trying to find a similar feel!
To address this, I introduced the "normalized reach" parameter in 2017, which creates an equivalent (normalized) reach for a frame at a reference stack value. The stack value can be whatever you like, but it has to be consistent throughout the comparison. This confuses some people, so most people continue to compare reach values and ignore the variability due to stack, even though this often affects the reach comparison by around 10 mm.
I'll agree with performance vs comfort - I'm am 100% coming at this from a performance perspective, but so are all the guys making changes to their cockpits and many here (so they think) when in reality it's comfort but that is lost on many but you get it.
And I'll note I never said or implied lowering bars down to your fork caps.....my point was don't assume they need to be raised just because a person is taller, I think that is a very reasonable position especially considering the OP said it as a blanket statement in reference to "almost all bikes" and as you point out, bikes vary a lot....
It's just that the discussion was about how adding spacers decreases "felt reach", whatver it's called; so that's what I was commenting on!
Wonder how many riders that raise their bars with spacers and/or tall bars are feeling benefits due to reduction in reach as much as added stack?
RE sweep, it always feels really good on my wrists at first and just spinning along, but never feels right when the pace heats up or the trail gets more interesting. I've got some SQ lab bars with more than average sweep that I've kept and try every once in a while on some builds, but never seem to stay on any bike for long!!
I still keep a couple extra stems and spacers in the truck cause sometimes I question my set up and try something different...?
Ya know how BP will sometimes randomly interview people about their bikes at a trailhead. (very cool!) It would be interesting if they got a batch of MTB coaches and randomly reviewed people's bike setup. I bet most coaches would think our bike fit is all kinds of wrong.... Mine at least!
For sure some tour/sport tour/adv bikes often have that kind of adjustment. (course, none of my bikes ever have!
Anyway, maybe I took your comments out of context? I think there are a lot of variables to the subject!!
Here Gwinn talking about it and even throws out he does it due to his background / experience with motos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQN-i9Vk4XA
100% agree, I've experimented wiht the SQ labs stuff, extensively, and I always love it at first but end up with somethings else.
You should see my bar and clamp boneyard between MX and MTB, not to mention MTB frame sizes over the years....I always gravitate back to a fairly neutral, no risers, no tall bars, shorter reach, bars in line with forks, levers a bit high setup, feels ok everywhere, master of none,
As far as moto's like yours is concerned, which is equal parts dirtbike and adv bike, comfort may be king, but if aiming for performance bars should never be rotated forward of in-line with forks....most feel slightly rotated back is the best.
But again - experiment, I have 5 sets of bars I'd let you try if you were here, low, high, different sweeps, etc.
And some things to consider. Gwin is 5'10", Gwin is a PRO downhiller by trade! Gwin, very often has bike geometry DESIGNED around HIM to his preferences...
SO, as a not DH'er by trade myuself who is almost half a foot taller than him and doesn't get to have bike geometry adjusted to my liking, I'm going to have to think we might not share the exact same bike set up?
NOW. I would fully admit that maybe I would ride better if I did copy his set up? IDK?
EDIT/ also he talks about how dirbikes don't come in different frame sizes and how most tall riders have forward bar roll to help with sizing...
Thats very condescending. I switched to the 701 because it's like having cheat codes for off road riding compared to most other ADV bikes and am getting better all the time. It may be baby steps compared to your moto skilz and that's fine.
But FU for always implying I'm trying to turn my bikes into couches...
youtu.be/wzt7WRnBGSk?feature=shared
Cliff notes, tall riders need lower bars, not rolled forward or tall.
I've been riding moto's for a long time - I rode 690's back when they came out (same as a 701), they are designed for comfort more than performance, is what it is, it's not a proper dirtbike but they have their place, I owned one for many years, great bike.
Imagine a bike with a normal reach, but zero stack - i.e. top of the head-tube is level with the BB. Unrealistic bike, obviously, but not impossible, so bear with me. Add a tower of spacers and the bar is in your lap, despite the "normal" reach. Alternatively, add a towering handlebar and the butt-to-bar is normal, but the grips are a looong way from the steering axis, creating an extremely long effective stem. Either way, it's clear this bike with normal reach and low stack is not equivalent to a bike with normal reach and normal stack.
The effect is not as extreme when the stacks being compared are not so extreme, but the principle remains the same: reach and stack are involved in determining the effective length of the bike. The latter makes a lesser difference, but it is incorrect to ignore it, especially in a discussion where people are splitting millimeters on stem length.
Again, condescending. It's only one of the most powerful single-cylinder bikes in existence. But yeah, they just make them so you can cruise down to Starbucks in comfort...
Thanks for gracing us with your knowledge...
I start with the frame geo, the reach, stack and EFTT are most important to me. But after I build a bike I move on to measuring my build as it relates to my contact points, the angles I get, etc.. I rarely have a stock build, (either build from frame, or buy the cheap model and replace the parts! Also, I tend to overfork often and lately mullet things), so my actual geometry numbers are likely different from the geo chart published by the manufacturer.
I don't disagree with the points you making though! Good advice!
Experience matters, his feedback is exactly the same as both Jimmy Lewis and Shane Watts, whom I've both taken classes from personally along with Chris Birch who I bought an online series from, all ex-pros and all professionally train newbies like yourself....they'll all tell you the exact same thing, ditch the risers, don't roll bars forward.
You do you snowflake, you are perceiving something as condescending when its not.
690/701 are not designed or built to race, is what it is, great bike for their purpose.
A person certainly can measure horizontally from the centre of the bar to the BB without accounting for stack or reach (also, we shouldn't measure from the centre of the bar, since that doesn't account for bar sweep). A bike with short reach and low stack could have a bar and/or stem with considerable extension and rise, while a bike with long reach and high stack could have a bar and/or stem with minimal extension and rise, both of which could produce the same positions of the BB, saddle, and grips.
I'm trying to ensure we separate and correctly define each element of fit and handling. Perhaps that's what you did, but that's not how I read it. In any case, it seems we're mostly (fully?) on the same page, and certainly so about the physics of the whole situation.
So if you put a negative rise stem and flip your riser bars to get your bars as low as possible. You might end up with a shorter "felt stack".
That's not different in concept than adding spacers and getting a shorter "felt reach". In both cases where your bar ends up, (and I measure at the end center though center grip might be better?), is still comprised of the actual reach and stack of the frame along with the parts you're using. You could just as easily end up with bars back so far that your "felt reach" is shorter than the frame's actual reach. (they just showed a pullback high stem that does that at Sea Otter)
You can't have the bars in 3D space to measure against the horizontal BB, (creating that triangle that captures stack and reach within), without the frame in there, so "to me" it's accounted for in the measurement. To me center bar to horizontal center of BB, cockpit, and BB height are numbers that are important. I'm going by fit and feel and measuring my bikes to help me decide and compare with my other bikes. All are Frankenstein'ed in some way and are no longer relevant to the published frame geo!
I'd bet if you did an all-time comparison of motocross dude's height and bike setups that he is an outlier. (I mean if he's that successful of a moto racer at his height he's probably already an outlier?) It's great that it works for him and it's great that it works for you. But who cares? There are some short MTB racers on large and XL frames. And there are some tall MTB racers who race mediums. Neither of those statements mean I should change the size of bike I'm on... Sticking my tongue out like Mahomes when I throw a football isn't going to turn me into a SBQB either.
And again, I'm not racing a motocross bike. It's not 1 to 1 with my moto nor even close to 1 to 1 with my MTB's.
I never said a 701 was built to race. It is by intent, obviously a dual sport bike and makes a hell of a sumo due to the power to weight ratio. But the idea that it was built for "comfort" is just stupid.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/26582794
I agree with your statements about how bar and stem dimensions affect the butt-to-bar distance, saddle-to-bar drop, etc. Those are separate issues from defining the dimension parameters of the bike. Unless I misinterpret you, you appear to be discussing the fit dimensions felt by the rider in a static position, while I'm discussing the terminology of each geometry parameter.
Presumably, we agree a given rider has a preferred position for their butt and their hands, referenced from the BB, and we agree there are multiple combinations of frame, bar, and stem dimensions that can achieve this preferred arrangement. Hopefully, we also agree the different combinations can produce different dynamic (handling) properties. If we're in agreement to that point, it's just a matter of how we define the dimensions and the terminology we use.
There are clear definitions for reach, stack, ETT, stem length, stem rise, etc., but they're inconvenient for quickly and clearly communicating one's preferred set-up, so it would be nice to group some of the terms together - which is what I gather you're trying to do, but doing so while capturing both fit and handling is difficult. I'm not proposing any solutions for that problem beyond "butt-to-bar" and "normalized reach"; I'm mostly here to be the terminology police to ensure these already murky waters don't become any more opaque!
You brought up your bikes performance, not sure why but it's is a 50/50 motorcycle and relative to a offroad 'race' bike it is a comfort fit. Enjoy your bike but keep an open mind.
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-bmb-reverse-raise-stem-wants-to-change-mountain-biking.html
One of the Pros: "Might make for a comfortable setup for some"
We can both play that game.
And yes, I mentioned this in my more adult conversation with RMR.
Thanks again for gracing us with your knowledge tho...
Nice...
Indeed!
It doesn’t alter how you get there, it just matters where the grips are in height and length relative to some other point.
So, in a perfect scenario you'd know you favourite angle, then get the grips at the correct effective stack and reach (by using aforementioned short stem + high vertical rise bar or long stem + spacers + bar's rise parallel with HTA)
Of course ultimately it's just about making the bike feel the way you want it to, but I think there is a value in knowing what did it. And with a typical stem length change (let's say 15mm) you can change your body position a fair bit, but the steering geometry barely changes.
Reach is based on frame geometry and since your head tube angle is (probably) not 90 degrees, anything you do to make the bars higher will make the reach shorter. You just might also compensate for the reduction in reach with a longer stem or the effect of bar roll vs rise, but these more the grips further forward relative to the front axle which may or may not be desirable.
There's no free lunch.
On my moto, backsweep was a HUGE aspect when looking at bars. Bikes it sure isn’t talked about remotely as much.
I'm running 12° with a significant reduction in hand and wrist discomfort vs. 8°.
I'm tall and have wide hips, it just felt so good when I was running pedal extenders. They're dangerous for MTB though. But it just makes sense logically from a bike fit perspective.
But if the reach is already where I want it, then it’s a higher rise bar.
Somewhere in-between = a combo.
Nowadays, headtubes are properly short and fork crowns minimize height and so low rise bars are too low. Adding spacers decreases reach, which sucks for climbing. I run my bars forward so a 38 rise bar with decent angles is alright. But I remember a 1.5 or 2 inch rise bar feeling awesome.
And don't forget about stem length. A 50 or 55 mm stem will offset the reach effect of a couple spacers. Maybe a person doesn't like how that livens up the steering but I'm good with it. My typical ride is 2 hours up an 15 mins down, so I need a setup for steep climbs = long reach = minimal spacers, 38 mm rise bar, 50 mm stem.
running uncut steerer and 60mm risers. feels like bar height got left out of the making-bikes-bigger trend
It wasn’t slammed, I just wanted to have more options to play with stack height.
Like anything greater than 30mm of bar rise creates 'vague' or uneven, near unpredictable bar flex patterns?
Or?
Like you could be on a slack bike with a bunch of spacers that minimizes the reach, but then if you put on a longer stem, your actual BB to handlebar center point "reach" measurement is back to the same point as if you had slammed a shorter step and put on higher ride bars.
I just feel that stack on bikes is just simply too little, so I end up usually with 25mm of spacers and 50mm rise bars, I'm not even that tall, I'm 5ft10.
I feel like the stack being low is a hangover from the trend ~10 years ago of you must have flat bars for front wheel grip, possibly needed for the short back end trend..
I for one don't want to be "pulled" onto the front wheel in order for it to grip, giving what feels to me a locked in position give me a strong, central position so I can choose to move forward or even push on the bars when needed.
I think this all feeds into the need for longer back ends and higher stack, not more reach (which has peaked and coming shorter again).
I use 70 and 90mm rise on my 2 mountain bikes just because head tubes are stupidly short on larger sizes. I notice all the shorties get the pleasure of grips a few inches above max dropper height, it feels better that way.
I like the higher rise bars cos you can adjust bach & forth without changing upsweep & backsweep too drastically.
Resale be damned, I always do ~3-5mm max under, ~2mm above, then whatever riser bar is needed to get comfortable. Primarily motivated by aesthetics, not going to lie. Never even occurred to me to go that route to alter reach. Never been terribly obsessed with reach numbers, surely between saddle position and stem length you can get plenty of fine tuning on your reach?? IMO the PB community has always had a very unhealthy obsession with reach numbers. When I hear my buddies ranting about reach I say "look I know I love reading Mike Levy's reviews too, but I really don't think it matters let's just ride"
Also to me it is definitely one of those things I obsess over when building the bike, but then never think about again after initial setup. I've had bikes where I left the steerer longer out of laziness then rode all season and didn't care about the stack of spacers.
And if you’re being the literal police, none of these changes to a bike change the literal reach of the bikes frame so are you mad about this whole discussion?
Stems have rose options too, both with angles that depend on length, and with offsets that don't need length, or even just with minimal stack height that can allow different spacer layouts.
The poll question also doesn't take into account the way the measurements are linked: increase in bar height with spacers can only decrease (effective) reach, and vice versa, and the (stupid) question assumes that this is always desired, which it may not be.
However, what's not dumb is using spacers AND riser bars, or riser stem, to tweak (effective) reach while either maintaining or simultaneously tweaking bar height. Or even better, slamming the stem and using stem length, stem rise, and bar rise to get the best looks while optimizing bar height and reach together.
I live somewhere really steep and most climbing is on gravel roads, so I choose a high bar and spacers to keep the front end higher on descents.
Where I'm sure a same height rider living somewhere flatter will slam their bars for more traction on flat corners and singletrack
You don't need a long(er) steerer tube, or spacers, or a riser handlebar (with is a good thing if you already have a handlebar that you like.
You have the frame you have, the steerer tube might already be cut off, and the handlebar you have has the right shape and width. So you pick a stem that brings that handlebar in the right position ♂️
Few things look more dorky than a 25-40mm stack of spacers... especially under a zero rise stem.
And few things invite more flex and creak into the main control point of the bike.
All of that leverage, bending and twisting force has to go somewhere, and is definitely doing something to that puny 1-1/8" aluminum tube/standoff sticking above the upper headset bearing.
High rise bars are only slightly less dorky. And somewhat less flexy, depending upon how they are (over)built.
And if you're trying to save weight, then all of that extra steerer tube length, extra spacers, and extra carbon bar layup adds up to something as significant as anywhere else you're trying to save weight. Every bit adds up.
But back to my point...
What's the actual goal here?
It's final hand position, and it's proper (for you) relationship to the bike's geometry, and how the bike fits you.
I've found the best solution and sweet spot is actually the most direct path to get your hands where they need to be, and to not have any one of the THREE variables trying to make up all of the distance that's required to get your hands where they need to be.
For my very average 5'-10" self, depending on the bike, that's 15mm-25mm of bar rise, 17° stem rise, and only 10mm of spacer - which is just enough to give some height adjustment either way.
The result is super clean and purposeful looking, spreading a portion of the total needed rise between spacer, stem rise, and bar rise. It's also the lightest possible approach.
I even have a few friends who are 6'-4", and have always struggled with handlebar choice, and bike fit and setup in general.
So I convinced them to let me create the ideal setup for them. Both are riding XL bikes with similar ~505mm reach.
What I came up with was 38° rise S-Works DH Carbon bars, a 25° rise stem (with longer reach than the 40mm-50mm we've been convinced we must use), and a 10mm spacer.
The results were a revelation for both of them, and the first time the felt like their bike setup wasn't a big compromise.
So, why have we as a biking community allowed ourselves to be sold on 0° or 6° stem rise, and having to make up all of the rise distance that we need elsewhere?
Too many shims are bad for the torsion on the headset and it is not rigid....And very ugly (Beginner's bike ^^)
My grips are generally at or slightly above the place of my seat on an enduro bike.
However, reach that you feel on the bike - the effective reach, will shrink if you raise the bars on any bike with a HTA of less than 90 deg. Doesn’t matter if this is via spacers or taller bars - you are moving the hand position up along the steering axis - the steerer tube/HTA. If you roll bars forward to offset the effective reach reduction, then you are doing so by extending the effective stem length.
The whole basis for this article is flawed and perpetuates a myth.
No, I'm not. You seem to be missing or ignoring the key point in my example, that the rise of the bars is _vertical_. In my case it's because that's how I like the sweeps, and in most cases that's how the sweeps are measured, hence why I usually see bar rises oriented vertically, which I do not consider "rolled forward". Thus, changing the bar height by using the same bar with a different rise does NOT move the hand position along the steering axis, it changes it vertically only. This will NOT change the reach, effective or otherwise.
I’ve explained it clearly up there, so little point in explaining it again as you choose to ignore it.
Your statement about fitting different heights of bars of the same sweep vertically not affecting reach is wrong for the same reasons as your other statements, no matter how sassy your replies are.
You can see from the pic in the article - the bars are rolled forward as you (and I) do, imagine a taller bar fitted the same way - the grip portion in the pic is further from the steerer than the bar clamp area - a taller bar exaggerates that further. The taller the bar in that orientation, the longer the effective stem length. Your statement about the horizontal distance to the grips being unchanged is correct, but that’s because the effective reach is reduced, and the effective stem increased by the same figure.
Taller bars by any means reduces effective reach, unless reach adjust or head angle steepening headsets are introduced to the mix.
Of course the actual reach figure is unaffected by riser bars or spacers as it’s a fixed distance, but that’s irrelevant as soon as you alter stack, and so the effective reach - the dimension you feel on the bike becomes relevant.
The side-on pic looks to me actually to be pretty much straight up. Looking right next to the clamp you can see pretty much all of the back surface of the bar, and it looks to be going a bit forward relative to the stem angle, pretty close to vertical in the pic, and the pic seems to be pretty close to level.
"Taller bars by any means reduces effective reach, unless reach adjust or head angle steepening headsets are introduced to the mix."
No, they do not "by any means". Only if the rise is not vertical, and only if that non-vertical is leaned/rolled back would effective reach be reduced. A forward roll would _increase_ the effective reach. On my bikes, and many I see, the rise is very close to, if not perfectly, vertical; meaning no effective reach change if only the bar rise is changed.
You contradict yourself a bunch here:
"the horizontal distance to the grips being unchanged is correct, but that’s because the effective reach is reduced": Effective reach _is_ the horizontal distance: if it is unchanged, then effective reach is unchanged.
"but that’s because the effective reach is reduced, and the effective stem increased by the same figure": If the stem length (actual or effective) increases, then effective reach increases.
"but that’s irrelevant as soon as you alter stack, and so the effective reach": And changing bar height with just rise means you _don't_ alter the stack, that's the whole point! No stack change means no effective reach change, which you just stated.
We should agree to disagree! ❤️
There's defiantly a sweet spot of spacer stack height where you hit this optimal stiffness/steering leverage characteristic not found on 'slammed' setups and especially vacant when you exceed 20mm+ of steer tube spacers.
Everything on the bike is a balancing act.
30-45mm rise handlebars...crucial.
Stop manufacturing bars in 800mm width...please start at 780mm and leave a small pittance inventory for "tall/heavy fat dickheads" who actually benefit from the flex pattern of an 800mm bar. The rest of us (actual majority) who cut 765mm and under are getting screwed.
Get mad
This makes no sense, partially because all headtubes are not the same length. You could easily have one bike slammed and another with 30mm of spacers, same bar and stem, and still have the bars the same distance from the axle. Throws your "slammed makes steering bad" bullshit right out the window.
In all colors, yes.