[Closed] New LLS geometry- bar height...

What's the seat tube angle on both bikes?

74 Vs. 77 on the new one.

That'll be why then - the 54mm extra reach is actually 34mm due to the 20mm shorter stem, but the 77 vs 74 degree seat angle means you're sitting further forward, shortening the distance between seat and stem.

It'll probably take a bit of getting used to, 77 degrees is pretty bloody steep, right up with modern bikes and you should see advantages when climbing. Worth a bit of adaption, you can always move your saddle back in the rails to give you a bit more room.

Make sense, before I do anything I'll try to adapt, I've never ridden with such a steep STa or short stem so lots of changes. It's nearly impossible to wheelie too, I think higher bars will help there.

I’ve found I prefer higher bars on bikes with longer reach.

I went from a fairly conventional bike to a LLS one. Took me ages to learn to manual it - you need to be more deliberate with technique. Same with wheelies - just need to really get your weight back.

I also like fairly high bars on a long bike.
My Murmur is 500 reach.
I have 170 lyriks, 120 HT, with Stooge bars which have pretty high rise, I think about 40mm.

14mm less stack,

So I’ve gone from:
150mm fork, 15mm of spacers, 55mm stem, 760 flat bar to
160mm fork, 20mm of spacers, 35mm stem, 800mm flat bar.

STA as said is gonna make the ETT short for sure.

You've also got 14mm less stack, but only 5mm more spacers. So you're 9mm lower stack. Plus you've got much wider bars, which will bring you forward and down.

I'd normally try adding another 20mm of spacers, and it's not a bad place to start. However, with a slack HA that'll make the bars even closer, and reduce your reach. I'd get a 20mm rise bar, and roll it forward a tiny bit. That should make things feel a lot nicer (I also prefer a bit more height with more reach).

When I'm seated, Reach doesn’t feel as long as I expected.

Then just move your saddle rearwards. I'd argue that reach is all about non-seated position anyway.

I also like fairly high bars on a long bike.

Me also.

As explained multiple time above in different ways, reach is the measurement from the bottom bracket to the head tube, so it doesn't describe the distance from saddle to the bars, which is basically the effective top tube length plus the stem length.

The steeper seat tube will reduce the top tube length, so you can extend that by fitting a layback seatpost and sliding the saddle back in the rails, giving a slacker effective seat tube angle. If that's not enough, a longer stem is the next option. If none of that works, you probably need a frame with a longer TT.

Lots of people here saying they prefer higher bars on a long reach frame.

Is that because the reach is too long and the higher bars are effectively reducing the reach?

I thought I liked higher bars too but having demo'd a 500mm reach Bird AM9 yesterday, setup with a lowish bar height, it made sense for making it easier to get weight on the front wheel.

As an aside the 500mm reach felt like it fit like a glove and getting back on my 457mm Transition Patrol it felt like a BMX

Is that because the reach is too long and the higher bars are effectively reducing the reach?

One point to check is the stack height. If the stack height is lower, then you need more spacers under the stem, a higher rise stem, or riser bars to get your hands back to the same height. With the current fashion for short stems, you don't get as much rise out of the stem for the same angle stem, and you generally can't put extra spacers under the stem because the steerers usually get cut just long enough for an inch or so of spacers. That just leaves higher rise bars as a way to lift your hands back up to where they were.

“Is that because the reach is too long and the higher bars are effectively reducing the reach?”

When I say “higher bars” I mean a higher grip position relative to my feet, so stack height plus the vertical component of stem spacers and bar rise.

My best guess as to why this is, is that I prefer this higher bar for descending and cornering but on shorter bikes I had to have the bar lower so they’d climb ok. The longer bike allows me to have the bar in a less compromised position.

Yes, but if the seat tube angle is steeper, then you are rotating the saddle forward around the bottom bracket. That will raise the saddle in relation to the bars even though the distance to the pedals is the same. Therefore you need to raise the bars to keep them in the same position relative to the saddle.

I hadn't considered stems getting shorter. Still, this would mean riser bars need to be rolled forwards to simulate a longer stem. If the bar is rolled back (i.e. the rise in line with the fork) then this could be reducing the reach considerably. Not saying this is good or bad, just preference.

If the bar is rolled back (i.e. the rise in line with the fork) then this could be reducing the reach considerably.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/exploring-the-relationship-between-handlebar-vs-stem-length.html

“Therefore you need to raise the bars to keep them in the same position relative to the saddle.”

Maybe it’s just me but the position of the bars relative to the saddle matters far less than the bars relative to the pedals. Uphill I mostly care about saddle vs pedals, downhill mostly about bars vs pedals.

On long climbs I find it helps to have the bars a bit lower, less strain on my lower back.

I'm quite sensitive to bar height. I know the trend is for higher bars "for on the steep stuff" but then I get that same feeling you describe OP - of the bar being in my lap when I'm climbing.

And I ride quite long reach bikes with normal-ish seat angles.

Anyway, it's trial-and-error for your personal preference IMO - I'll be keeping my bar pretty low.

If you slam the stem against the headset, this will move the bar forward. Get the height you need with a riser bar instead of spacers because putting spacers under the stem reduces saddle to bar distance.

“If you slam the stem against the headset, this will move the bar forward. Get the height you need with a riser bar instead of spacers because putting spacers under the stem reduces saddle to bar distance.”

However you gain grip height, be it from spacers, stems or bars, you will always lose reach unless you increase the effective stem length (forward offset of grips perpendicular to the steering axis) and thus change the steering feel.

Thanks for all the response.... So I've ridden it for a couple of hours, mostly flat (local) trails and the feeling improved a bit, but the overriding feel is I still need my bars higher. I can't really fit more than 20mm spacers as the steerer has been cut... One interesting thing I found as I rode with a mate who has the same bike as I've just sold, albeit on 650 plus wheels is the grips are the same height from the floor, so it's not like they're crazy low, I think I'll try some 780 x 25mm risers and if that doesn't work I'll try a 45mm stem.

The moral of the story is that no matter how many bikes you've built and how many steerers you've cut, leave it longer than you think for a few rides, although I've never used more than 20mm of spacers it's nice to have options.... Stealth ad/ Anyone want a set of carbon Nukeproof bars, one ride old? /stealth ad.

NEVER set a bar up for seated position on a mtb. Seated bar position doesn't matter and if you think it does... STAND UP !!

what's with folk buying flat bars?

What if your rides are hours long, a lot of the time you're seated, you need to be comfortable in that position, I agree your descending position takes precedence from a handling point of view, but you need a happy medium, it's not all about shredding the #gnar... I don't do uplifts etc.

I come from an XC racing background riding smaller wheels and a flat bar, why wouldn't you ride a flatish bar with much taller (29x2.6) tyres?

What if your rides are hours long

I'd sort of assumed that as a given for anybody spending ~£100 on a carbon handlebar for a £2k+ mountain bike frame. As are my rides.
Hint: Each of your arms has hinges at each end and one in the middle. Your saddle position sorts out your comfort while seated. Those hinges allow multiple combinations for you to alter your upper body comfort while riding. 😉
Anything that requires proper control (as opposed to just sat down steering and grip) involves being stood up. Compromise your set-up if you must but compromising descending/stood up control makes least sense unless you still ride in an old skool XC racer frame of mind. In which case I'd question your frame choice.

I come from an XC racing background riding smaller wheels and a flat bar

Yeah. Me too, Back when pretty much all mtbs were rigid steel and derived from roadbike gometry. things have moved on.

why wouldn’t you ride a flatish bar with much taller (29×2.6) tyres?

You seem to be slowly figuring this out by yourself.

Sorry mate. Set-up is entirely subjective. But if your aim is to set up the new bike as the stumpy you also ned to compare reach and BB height f the two bikes.
I'd echo Chief's advice here:
"Maybe it’s just me but the position of the bars relative to the saddle matters far less than the bars relative to the pedals. Uphill I mostly care about saddle vs pedals, downhill mostly about bars vs pedals."

But remember to use those hinges I mentioned

Yes, lots of variables to consider... I'm not trying to set it up like my Stumpy, just like I didn't try to set that up like the rigid Kona I had in the 90's. Just trying to get comfy, I'll get there eventually.

So what are you actually saying, leave the bars as they are and adapt when seated? It does feel better out of the saddle.

This article is quite interesting.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/lee-mccormacks-guide-to-perfect-bike-set-up.html

If you actually think about the ergonomics of it, low bars don’t make much sense. Where they’re needed is for aero (irrelevant on MTBs) or to help keep your weight low and forwards on steep climbs.

If you’re from a roadie background you may think you need low bars for a good pedalling position but I suspect that’s just based on long ingrained physical habits, not logically superior biomechanics or ergonomics.

NEVER set a bar up for seated position on a mtb. Seated bar position doesn’t matter and if you think it does… STAND UP !!

Nonsense.

You’ve got to get a compromise for both I’d say. Maybe I was lucky with my bike but it came with one spacer above the stem and a stack underneath. I was struggling with a low bar so after a few rides I moved the spacer beneath the stem. Immediately felt a bit more comfy.

After about 4 months I decided I didn’t think I liked the handlebar so I swapped it for one slightly wider and with more up and back sweep. That made a huge difference to comfort. After some more riding and a bit of coaching I’ve now move the spacer back above the stem and I think I could perhaps move another above it to see how that feels. I think the lower end helps you weight the front wheel more - being long and slack that’s always been my main challenge and I’ve crashes 3 times where I’ve lost the front wheel in a corner.

The LLS thing makes you a lot quicker I’ve found, so then if you find your talent limitations it’s at higher speed and a bit messy. Hence getting some coaching and I feel a lot more confident and strava times have got quicker again. I think I’m going to get some more coaching sessions every now and then as they are really making the most of the bike and I’m enjoying it more and more.

To add, I’d try a few cheap handlebars to adjust your position -
Don’t waste money on £100 bling bars until you know if the rise / sweep is going to suit you.

I’d be inclined to try a Planet X El Guapo Saloon riser bar. £21 at the moment in either 31.8 or 35mm clamp size. I’ve had 2 (one on my old fs and one on my new fs) and they’ve been perfect and aren’t that heavy. Decent size and sweep.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/HBEGLS/el-guapo-saloon-riser-handlebar

What you're experiencing is probably the difference in stack height between your last bike & this one. That era of Stumpy has a mega long head tube, which makes the front end on them sky high. My other half has a Stumpy as her own bike (large) & various long termer test bikes which all have a considerably lower front end. she also found/finds the transition between the two of them quite difficult.

The seated reach position on the bike as you have found won't feel much different once you take into account the much steeper STA, but you will be much more central on the bike, rather than right out over the back wheel.

Personally, as someone who rides a similar designed bike, I don't run a flat bar (although not one with mega rise, think they are 20mm) and certainly no short stems due to the weird handling traits they introduce. I run a 50mm stem.

More of the absolute nonsense spouted on this forum by Geex. It’s cringeworthy to read. I prey to god you don’t work in the industry , as your genuinely giving terrible advice.

You would always set the bar and stem for a comfortable and efficient seated position assuming we are not talking DH/trials bikes.

I'll give those bars a go, I've used the El Anchor before and they were pretty good. Just checked and the bar is actually 1/2" rise not flat as I thought. I'm thinking with a 25mm rise I'll be able to rotate it to adjust my reach a bit, combined with a 50mm stem the grips will be a bit further forward and higher. I also wonder if the odd steering is from the short stem, I've never run less than 55mm.

When I went to 29ers from (flat bar) 26ers, in old fashioned xc geometry days, I tried to get the bars as low as they had been, but this wasn't easy. Had risers on my 26" dh bike. I have just gone to a longer (but not really long) geometry trail bike and have been thinking about trying risers. I use the bike for general riding, sometimes riding the 10k or so flat to the trails, and so general comfort is a consideration. The flat bars are fine on the flat when pressing on, but if bimbling, something higher to take the weight off the hands would be nice. I am also finding sometimes I run out of arm travel when trying to push the front wheel into stuff. But maybe that is my "attack" position being a bit defensive.

So strangely I think possibly risers would be useful when (trying to) smash trails and when bimbling along the flat.

“So strangely I think possibly risers would be useful when (trying to) smash trails and when bimbling along the flat.”

I found this a couple of years ago when setting up my LLS hardtail experiment.

Anyone who thinks bar height is most about seated pedalling position is doing the type of MTBing that I’m not interested in (or riding a bike with horribly compromised handling). And I’ve never owned a DH or trials bike.

Its always some form of compromise between downhill handling, comfort and climbing. The only thing you can really do is try a few combinations until you know what works.

My Hightower came with a flat bar and i'm constantly moving spacers over and under the stem to decide where i actually want it. As the bar height increases there is a noticeable increase in the wandering front wheel factor on seated climbs. Jury is still out.

"My Hightower came with a flat bar and i’m constantly moving spacers over and under the stem to decide where i actually want it. As the bar height increases there is a noticeable increase in the wandering front wheel factor on seated climbs. Jury is still out."

The Hightower (and the LT even moreso) has quite a slack effective seat angle for a modern bike and even slacker actual seat angle, so you can't have your bars as high as on a longer reach and steeper seat tubed bike without the front wandering or lifting.

Another factor that is making your bars feel low is probably your head angle. I assume your new bike has a much slacker head angle which will result in the head tube (and bar) being lower.

I find that with a longer bike you need a much higher bar for descending. A high bar makes it easier to weight your front wheel and maintain traction. From personal experimentation I now run a 38mm rise bar (I used to run a flat bar).

Steeper seat angles will be weird to begin with, but you will soon get used to it.

[geek mode]
I have four bar/stem combos from the parts bin that I've been looking at for my LLS bike.

I've found I can set up each one consistently by placing the grip area of the bars on a flat surface and measuring the angle of the stem. My preferred angle (picture) is ~127 degrees (180 - (90 - head_angle) - 28.5 ). This is a consistent method of setting up bars between bikes with varying head angles and for bars with different backsweep and upsweep ending up minimally different in feel.

The datum for this magical angle is as though the bar were installed rolled back until the the grips sit in a horizontal plane (no upsweep / all backsweep). My preference of 28.5 degrees is rotating the bars back close to their book figures; some bars are a little bit rolled back from their book figures and some are a little rolled forward; my preferred rotation is happily in the middle of where manufacturers think normal should be: Renthal (5 upsweep, 7 backsweep) would need 35.5 degrees to be on book figures, so is rolled back a little bit; Burgtec (4 upsweep, 9 backsweep) is rolled forward from its natural 23.8 degrees. Easton Havocs would be on book settings pretty much perfectly. Set like this, all the bars are angled in the same plane where my wrists feel most relaxed. The Renthal is still a "less swept" bar than the Burgtec but the difference isn't huge.

I have then measured the bars to work out the different stem sizes and spacers to put the grips at the same reach and stack (having taken roll angle out of the equation, this is now a determinable calculation).

A) 30mm rise Renthal Fatbar in a 42mm stem with 30mm of spacers (actual stem 30mm, fit -12)
B) 40mm rise Renthal Fatbar in a 41mm stem with 17mm of spacers (actual stem 35mm, fit -6)
C) 20mm rise Raceface Turbine R in a 47mm stem with 33mm of spacers (actual stem 40mm, fit -7)
D) 20mm rise Burgtec RideWide DH in a 55mm stem with 28mm of spacers (actual stem 55mm, datum fit)

In practicality (with the stems I have in the parts bin) I can swap between bars to fine adjust the fit of the bike while keeping the feel at the bars negligibly different.
[/geek mode]

You would always set the bar and stem for a comfortable and efficient seated position assuming we are not talking DH/trials bikes.

But you wouldn't, would you? Same as you wouldn't (or shouldn't!) set the sag on the bouncy bits sat on the seat. The OP's got a rowdy frame that's meant to be slung about while you're stood up. You can't sling a bike about sat down like a sack of spuds-

[img] [/img]

I'll show my arse in Fenwick's window if that thing's meant to be minced.

There'll be balance/compromise though, unless you're just using it for winch and plummet stuff.

And this-

Anyone who thinks bar height is most about seated pedalling position is doing the type of MTBing that I’m not interested in (or riding a bike with horribly compromised handling). And I’ve never owned a DH or trials bike.

Interesting peaslaker, I'll need to read that a few times before it sinks in...

My bike is set up similar to that by the look of it, so maybe I'm just weird?