Thread: How high should my bars be?

Ok. Is there a rough height off the ground your bars should be in relation to your height? Reason I ask is on steep climbs, I wail my knees on the shifters from time to time. The bars are roughly level with the top bony ridge of my hips. The bike has a 160mm fork, a 50mm 0 rise stem, and 15mm rise bars. The bars are about half an inch from the top of the steerer, which is about 7.5".

How do you guys figure out bar height? Where does it end up falling for you? I've got about 2" of drop between the nose of the saddle and the stem when the seat is up for climbing.

thanks
H.

sounds like you need a longer stem or a longer frame


Bar height beyond getting those two things dialed is more personal preference than anything. But you should be able to have your bars fitting across a range where what you describe doesn't happen.

it's like I can get one part of the bike to fit, but then I can't get the other. 23.2 tt. I'm 6', long legs. I put 60 miles on the bike this weekend, back felt great, downhill and jumpy stuff was perfect. Climbing wasn't so bad, except for the knee-mutilation.

Woo, what are your thoughts on having a jumpy trail bike with a 70mm stem on it instead of a 50?

If you follow trends they should have been slammed so low they won't clear your top tube the last couple years.

Seems the trends had gone to far and many people are putting a spacer or two back under the stem or using a bar with a wee bit more rise.

I find it's a feeling thing, you know when you've found the right spot. Getting the right size frame first does make all the difference.

Super tall guys get screwed on most trail bike frames as many manufactures keep the same length head tube on all sizes. Bikes with a huge stack of spacers just looks uber dorky.

bar height has nothing to do with a ground to bar measurement due to differing geometry of bikes.

It does sound like your reach is too short.
Get a professional fit.

A Specialized Body Geometry fitter is a decent level of certification.
Check it:
http://www.specialized.com/no/no/dealer-locator

Dude! Your setup is tiny.

I am about the same size. 6'2", 34" inseam, short torso, giraffe neck.

I run a 24.2" Top tube
10mm longer stem
10mm higher rise bar
.75" longer steer tube

And find the bike super maneuverable and reactive on the down

just switched from a 50 to 70cm stem on my AM trailbike. Climbs better (less wander), steers quicker, still works for jumpy-bermy-flowy stuff. I'm 6'-4" and seem to always be pushing the limit with short stems and my knees. On really steep stuff I occasionally hit the shifter with flats - but not clipped in. Seeps like the right compromise

I don't think there is any hard rule here that trumps just trying it on your own. a 60mm or 70mm stem might fix your problem and still give the ride quality that you want.

Originally Posted by shirk

...Bikes with a huge stack of spacers just looks uber dorky.

I just got a new ride and getting the bars to the right height does require an unaesthetic number of spacers, like 45mm. I have a 20mm rise bar but would run a 40 if they were still made! A conical spacer smoothes out the look a bit, but I still wish that head tubes were longer.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I've always ridden smaller bikes for dh and jumpy stuff (small sunday, atomlab trailking SS) When I got the remedy, I picked it up as a mini DH bike for midwest chairlift stuff, so I set it up short and wide. Fast forward a few years, and I'm riding xc 80% of the time. Stuck with the same bar and stem setup though.

Also, I ride flats for everything, so I'm sure that doesn't help the bar/knee issue.

ok. So how much should I jump up stem wise?

60, 65, or 70?

Secondly, who wants to trade a mint Raceface D2 toploader 50mm for a 65-70mm stem of equal quality?

1 cm is not much difference. I'd go to a 70. (or I went to a 70 and didn't regret it. different enough without being a huge change. I also went to a slightly shorter bar, 28 inch down from almost 30. Overall more responsive in the twistys - which is a good thing.

3hundy,

what size steerererer and bar combo are u looking for? i have a spare thomson 1 1/8 25.4 x 70mm

Originally Posted by 300hp

Woo, what are your thoughts on having a jumpy trail bike with a 70mm stem on it instead of a 50?

70 is not huge. Go for it. You need some space to move. See if you can borrow some parts from friends (60, 65, 70) and try them out.

Originally Posted by 300hp

it's like I can get one part of the bike to fit, but then I can't get the other. 23.2 tt. I'm 6', long legs. I put 60 miles on the bike this weekend, back felt great, downhill and jumpy stuff was perfect.

Sounds like a "medium" frame under a person who would more typically ride a "large" size frame.

I'm 6'0", 33.75" inseam (cycling measurement). I can ride a 23.5 TT bike, but that's at the small end of the spectrum for me, with a 100mm stem (XC bike, but sitting fairly upright). More typically, I fit well on 23.75-24" TT bikes, with 70-90mm stems.

Thanks for the good words guys.

First, I can't get a "fit" around here for a bike that one intends to ride like a mountain bike. The local forums are abuzz with talk of weekly training that will increase your watt output, and about carbon forks that have "too much give". The idea of riding one bike up hills, down hills, and jumping off of stuff is pretty lost. I don't consider myself an xc rider. I ride trail because I can ride 30miles of singletrack starting a few hundred yards from my apartment door, I don't like gyms, and any riding makes you a better rider.

I was looking for some comparison prospective, and it seems like my current rig is sized small. Goes to show that after a couple years you end up getting used to whatever you are riding, and then end up riding really well on it. Now that I've consistently been riding 50ish trail miles a week, I find myself out of the saddle more since I've got more power, leading to some encounters between the shifter and knee.

I measured last night, and she's got a 23.5 ett. I have 25mm of spacers right now. I'm going to throw on a 60mm stem I forgot I had and 5mm more stack and give that a try. When I can track down a 65mm and 70mm to throw on, I'll do that too. I used to switch parts of my setup all the time, but now I'm becoming a bit of a crumedegon. We have a fall enduro series coming up, so I was weary about killing the descendability of the bike. But if the wookid rides a 65mm stem, it has to go downhill pretty well.

just to be clear, did you say your smal frame has a ETT of 23.5? that's what most L frames are.

Originally Posted by BoatBound

just to be clear, did you say your smal frame has a ETT of 23.5? that's what most L frames are.

most medium frames are 23-23.5 eff tt.

most large frames are 24-24.5 eff tt.

of course effective top tube is basically meaningless unless you know sea tube angle.

the most important thing to look at is the wheelbase, and the reach, if its advertised.

OK, intersting stuff Marshal, for example, my Ibis is XL, 24.4 ETT and a 73* seat tube angle. can you explain little on that relationship.

I found this article which is very interesting http://www.leelikesbikes.com/why-is-...-rip-able.html

I guess that got a little confusing. The comment was about how the setup of my bike was small for *me* in terms of pedally riding. My bike has a 72 seat angle. It is a 2008 remedy, so size wise it is in line with a current generation 18.5" remedy, making it a M.5 or 1/L, depending on how you look at it. Trek called it a 23.3 ett, the tape puts it closer to 23.5.

My questions came from adapting the bike to be more comfortable for pedaling. With a slammed seat, 50mm stem and 780mm bars, it made a great short travel downhill bike. Now, with a lighter build, it is my primary bike for all types of riding, and I was trying to gauge how other riders set up their bikes of similar size.

HTH.

My buddy has the same issues. We both run the same Tt length and short stems for pedally play bikes(new categorie not to b confused with am) he's 6"1. I'm 5"8. He picked up a wide bar with a super high rise. Not ape hangers but maybe 2 or 3 inch rise. Really likes it. Neither one of us really want to compromise on stem length 35-50 max.

my Ibis is XL, 24.4 ETT and a 73* seat tube angle. can you explain little on that relationship.

Ibis run small. My XL Intense has an almost 26in ETT and a 72degree STA.

This is why more mfgers are providing Reach and Stack measurements.

ETT was useful back when seat tubes were all straight, and about the same angle.

Boat bound- 73 deg is mildly steep. 72 is average, 71 is mildly slack for a Seat tube angle.

If your same bike had a 71 seat angle, you would have about a 25" top tube. 72deg would be about 24.75" or so.

None of this effects reach, and your saddle position is going to be ideally the same relative to the bottom bracket. The only thing that changes is your saddle rails position relative to the seat post, or the amount of setback in the seat post.

Thanks Marshal, I have been inspired to do a lot of diggin' the last couple of days. If anyone thinks ski's are complicated, bikes make it seem simple.

Seems like the more I learn about fit, it seems like a lot is preference and not absolute.