Short stem/wide bars on a Retro?

[Dossa]

Any advantage using a "modern style" short stem & wide bars combo on a retro rig?

Or are they only really effective on modern bikes due to different geometry/TT length etc?

Shortest stem I've ever used is 120mm! But tempted to try a shorter front end on my P7 as that stem with wide bars is leaving me a bit stretched out.. :roll:

 

[gradeAfailure]

I'd agree with your latter point more as to a degree you need the slacker head angle to stop it feeling twitchy with a short stem; though the wider bars do offset it to some extent.

How short/wide were you thinking? 90mm stem with 680-700mm bars should be ok.

 

[Dossa]

Re:

Initially, I thought 100mm stem/ 680mm low riser bar

Originally designed for a 135mm quill and 580mm bars

 

[gradeAfailure]

That should be fine - I swapped from that exact combo to that exact combo on my '94 Ascent and it made the world of difference. 100mm stem and 680mm Azonic bars had a bit of rise to them though, made it a pleasure to ride.

 

[Dossa]

Re:

Great stuff thanks..

I'm going to buy a couple of cheapo stems off eBay to experiment with different lengths etc before settling on a Thomson

 

[unit3]

Re:

I remember me and all my mates changing to this type of setup bitd,

Super modern wide looks silly, but a set of retro risers and shorter stem makes the world of difference.

 

[xerxes]

Re:

I've got 680mm bars and an 80mm stem on my retro; all good and I don't think it looks too daft:

 

[drystonepaul]

Re:

Really depends on the top tube length.
Frames from the 80's and 90's tend to have shorter top tubes than their modern equivalents.

So for example an 18 inch frame (as measured center to centre along the seat tube) from 1992 could easily have a top tube which is a full inch shorter, let's say 22.5 inches, than a modern or current frame.

I normally find that 18" modern MTB frames fit me well, while the same size older frames can have too short top tubes.
I usually find that slightly larger retro frames fit me better in this respect without the need to fit very short stems.
I have a few 19" and 20" bikes that are very comfortable.
That said, I do often fit slightly shorter stems on the retro bikes I ride regularly. By this I mean 100mm or less rather the 130mm plus.

The other thing that is worth mentioning is bar ends. You can have a shorter reach for downhills and technical sections, and bar ends to stretch out a bit on climbs and flat sections.

I do like bar ends.

Except on riser bars. That's just wrong.

 

[dyna-ti]

And to think people used to cut their bars narrower :? Oh how time change :?

 

[legrandefromage]

Older bikes had the shorter higher rise stem and big wide bars. The XC racing scene seemed to give it all the roadie arse up head down look with the longer stems. Some bikes work very well and as above, some dont.

My own Zaskar (21" short top tube!) has gone from 130mm flipflop stems to 70mm-ish Azonic Shorty and back again over the years as the arse position has gone up, then down again.

The most fun was with a slightly longer than standard rigid forks and short stem/ big risers.

All my 1980's frames ride better with short upright stems and risers but I had a quite small 1989 frame that rode brilliantly with a 130mm stem and flat bars. It wouldnt have worked with anything else:

Theres lots to be said on the physics of current headtube angles/ super long forks, fork rake and short stems, but it may take a while to explain. Plus you have absurdly wide bars which dont work in natural singletrack conditions (we dont mention the asinine trail centre singletrack)