79pmooney

What I am seeing is a rider who is fit best by a rather tall bike but with a short top tube. He chose to modify a stock bike with the appropriate top tube. I'm betting that the larger versions of that bike would have longer top tubes and require (for the same fit) shorter stems. Longer stems make for a "quieter" ride, ie easier, less sensitive steering.

Years ago I wrote a program into which I could enter the published dimensions of a bike and quickly find out what stem I needed to make it work. Plugged in every stock titanium bike I could get the specs for. All required custom stems. I waited until I could afford a custom frame. Paying $4000 for a "class B" fit plus several hundred dollars for a custom stem? Nah. Now do I have had those custom stems on several other bikes. Stems I have used over the years to make stock bikes fit: Horizontal quills (-17 degrees); two 180s, -22 degrees; 155, -27 degrees; 175. A bunch of stock 140s (thank you, Nitto for the Pearl 130 which is actually a 140), 135 and many 130s. (In hindsight, many of the bikes with the 130s didn't have enough reach.)

The OP and I have opposite needs for reach. We ride roughly the same seat tube size. I am always looking for more reach, either forward or down. My older 59 cm Trek 400? runs the -22 175 near slammed. I run a 140 most of the way down on my 53 cm Raleigh Competition. Bars closer and lower but my shoulders stay in the same place and the two bikes are different but work equally well. Both bikes look "odd". I am totally old-school racing when it comes to handlebar shape because they work so well for me. (Some minor changes from what they raced 50-80 years ago plus aero levers.) But to each his own. I applaud the OP for finding what works.

Ben