trail_monkey

I got a Soma Wolverine sporting 40cm cowbell 2 bars. I am not expert on all the aspects of bike geometry but for all purposes this bike is very smooth and handles very well as well as being extremely stable feeling. I have been running an 80mm Salsa guide stem and it feels pretty good. I have said in some other threads how this bike is the best fitting bike I have in my stable and it's true. But when riding I have a tendancy to ride with my hands several cm behind the hoods closer to the curves. If I am fully forward on the hoods I do feel just a tad stretched. Not much but just a tad. And when fully forward on the hoods my arm angle is slightly beyond 90 degrees to my torso. Yesterday I was experimenting with different stem set ups. I was trying out a 60mm Truvative MTB stem with a similar rise. With just some urban riding around town and through the alleys this is what I have found out.

With the 80 I experience good control, snappy responsive steering (not twitchy), I know the bike has good high speed control from past rides, and I have no trouble popping the front wheel to get over a bump.

With the 60, I experience good control, snappy responsive steering (slightly more responsive but still not twitchy), I do not know about high speed control yet as I haven't been out on any long rides with big long hills, and I can pop the front wheel equally as well maybe just a touch easier.

I fully expected something radically different in terms of handling like to the point of almost being scary but I do not. This may be due to good bike geometry such as rake/trail plus a longer touring wheelbase which the Wolverine is known for etc but I have no idea for sure. Since I have yet to get this set up out on any long rides, I do not know what to expect yet from this shorter stem but so far it feels like there is minimal difference other than the way I feel less stretched out when fully forward on the hoods. Anyone else ever tried a stem this short on a drop bar adventure/gravel bike? Did you like it or nay?

ckindt

^ This is your answer.

The ride stability is a result of the bike's geometry. Your input efforts are a result of your leverage points - like a stem.

A 2 cm shorter stem will change your level of comfort on the bike more than your control of it.

trail_monkey

I've read enough posts on the internet in the last few years about bike fit to know that usually when someone inquires about going with a much shorter stem people always jump in and say your frame must be too large. But I think my bike shop mechanic fitted me in the proper size frame. If I would have went with the next size smaller the head tube length would have been a lot shorter I would have needed that many more spacers to get my bars at the proper level. Still stoked about this bike. Can't wait to see what this stem feels like on a nice 30+ mile gravel ride coming up.

Flamme Rouge

2 things, and I'm talking about gravel/road riding, not MTB.

A shorter stem absolutely can contribute to a feeling of twitchiness. Anything that affects the front wheel will translate into a more rapid movement of the handlebars. This is hardly noticeable at low speeds but can become a real attention-grabber on a high speed (40+ mph) descent. Your call on whether it's an issue.

Work on your flexibility, particularly your hip flexors. On recovery rides you can practice riding in the out on your hoods or in the drops for extended periods. Look at your position compared to faster/stronger riders (think pros). Work on getting your back lower and flatter, and remember to bend your elbows.

If your bike frame is properly sized there is no reason to be on a stem that short, it will become more tiring over time and you likely will be less aerodynamic. The primary reason to use a shorter stem on a gravel bike is to move your center of gravity towards the rear to improve (seated) climbing on loose surfaces. Even then, most experienced gravel riders rarely use less than a 90mm, assuming the frame is properly sized.

The variable here is that many bars have different reach, so you really need to consider stem+bar reach when looking at your cockpit. Good luck.

trail_monkey

40 mph!? Holy crap! I I wouldn't normally hit over 20 on gravel. 35 tops for me on pavement down hill.

Marcus_Ti

35MPH on pavement is where it gets fun. Had a descent near the Nebraska/South Dakota border a few years back. Decent highway that was deserted....A mate and I were spunout at 50MPH, course that was on roadie bikes with slicks. Course then we had to turn around and go back up at the border.

trail_monkey

Yeah I'm running a one by setup with a 42 front chainring. I'm a recreational Rider and I do not race. The only way my legs have the horsepower to keep up with the 11 tooth Cog is if I'm on a slight downhill or have a strong wind at my back. And the only way I will get going much faster than 20 miles an hour on gravel is if it's a smooth hard pack without any loose stuff. Most of the time the gravel is like riding on marbles around here and I am not going to get going that fast cuz it's just too scary.

Marcus_Ti

Yea that is the fun thing about gravel, it is a bit different everywhere. Yesterday was riding a chipped limestone rails-trails levee-trail with some railroad crossings...the crossing basically became singletrack going into it....and the crossing itself was 3-4" rock railroad ballast that the RR company just dumped.


A knobbie adventure bike probably won't see too many dare-devil sustained 2+ mile 6-8% descents. Some bikes simply don't handle that kind of thing with confidence the way others do. Comes down to fit and geometry, and confidence/technique of the rider.

trail_monkey

I just used a trail calculator and according n to my calculations my bike has a trail of 70mm. From what I have read that is a lot. So having a trail that high probably would benefit from wide bars short stem? Higher trail number makes a bike more stable and less twitchy on the steering am I correct?

Edit...used one online calculator and one online chart. One said my trail was 70 and the chart said 64. I don't think either matters. I went from a cross geometry with a steeper HTA and a fork with less rake to this bike with a 72 HTA and a fork with more rake and the difference is obvious to me. Being an ex auto technician who spent the better chunk of his career as a front end alignment specialist, this stuff just intrigues me as it is my nature.

Marcus_Ti

There's lots of things going on, but yes.

https://calfeedesign.com/tech-papers...bike-handling/


Stem length alters how much control input is or is not needed-as well as reach. Further with handlebars like Salsa Cowbell and so on that are wide and greatly flared (relative to typical roadie or CX bars), combined with riders favoring the hoods/hooks compared to the tops, would neutralize the shorter stem variable a bit.

50voltphantom

Sounds like you've got it figured out. I understand how a shorter stem quickens steering but at the same time I feel like people blow it out of proportion.

trail_monkey

I kind of do too. I do believe that most people will become accustomed to whatever setup change they've made and get used to it in a short amount of time.