Weird Reversed Stem Geo / Chat

I think I’ve adapted to the looks already, to me a dual crown fork bike with the bars mounted up in front of the top clamp on a 50mm stem is odd looking, always was.
I’ve been on 35 mm stems since 2001, just feels right! I will be going for the reverse stem in the future.
 
Last edited:
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
Here's some of my parts.. still waiting on bars.
Fifty Fifty Stem 30mm offset and 28mm rise/ 31.8mm
Spacer / Reach adjust 12mm
View attachment 180188View attachment 180189

Will shoot a complete setup once I get my bars.
Current mounting solution give a 40mm rise and -18mm offset
Bars will be 35mm rise with 5 backsweep @ 780mm. There's a 50mm version available.

I think for people looking into the whole 31.8 bars, moto parts for surron might come in handy.

total cost shipped to Canada: $216 CAD.
Stem spacer / offset - $98
DM Stem - $61
Bar - $57
here's the finish setup:
1774498998934.webp

1774498977903.webp
 
Last edited:
Work in progress fitting my new stem, so apologies for the “busy” photos.

30deg rise absolutely didn’t fit. Fitted some 20deg 800mm bars (I like/need 760mm bars for the techie riding in forests I prefer).

Even the 20deg were a bit tight.
IMG_4360.webp
IMG_4359.webp
IMG_4361.webp
IMG_4362.webp
IMG_4357.webp
IMG_4355.webp
 
This is a good detour if you ask me.

I was never that great at MX. In my prime I'd be the fastest guy at the local track on a practice day, but that's not the same thing as race day. However, road racing I set a class lap record and won races at a major speedway.

Every Pro rider has 40+ rwhp of roost in 2nd gear coming off their rear tires no later than by when about 40-50% of the turn is completed, even in flat turns. They actually start before that to pivot. The front tire is too light to bite and steer. Riders stay forward so as not to loop out but I stand by the idea that after the initial turn the front tire is more a rudder than anything else.

They steer off the rear tire, even Jett while standing.View attachment 178806
[after the initial turn the front tire is more a rudder than anything else]. Absolutely correct...
 
Just got my RR stem in. Thing is built like a tank. I'd be curious to know if it was engineered, or just waaaay overbuilt to be sure it was strong enough. Weight concerned types need not apply. :P
 
Did a little lap around the neighborhood. Need to get it out on a real trail I'm familiar with. The bar definitely feels much closer to me when I'm seated. Turning feels different, but 5 minutes on pavement isn't enough to say different-good or different-bad.

bmb.webp
 
Did a little lap around the neighborhood. Need to get it out on a real trail I'm familiar with. The bar definitely feels much closer to me when I'm seated. Turning feels different, but 5 minutes on pavement isn't enough to say different-good or different-bad.

View attachment 180331
Awesome! 😄 Have you made any adjustments to front tire and fork pressure yet?
 
Fork is a coil, so I can't change it. Tire is radial I run at 25 and is normally quite plush and still feels plush.
If you can’t change the fork, you may find a change to the rear can be done instead to stiffen the rear shock for better balance if the bike isn’t loading evenly.
 
If you can’t change the fork, you may find a change to the rear can be done instead to stiffen the rear shock for better balance if the bike isn’t loading evenly.
Do you find that there's still an advantage to be had on bikes like the levo, that have a fundamentally poor f/r ratio ?
Or better results with bikes closer to that 1.8 ratio ?
 
Do you find that there's still an advantage to be had on bikes like the levo, that have a fundamentally poor f/r ratio ?
Or better results with bikes closer to that 1.8 ratio ?
Seems kind of silly to say the Levo has some kind of objectively poor geo. Clearly a bunch of bike designers at Spec disagree, along with thousands of riders? Like I bought it after test riding it because I really liked how it felt.
 
Seems kind of silly to say the Levo has some kind of objectively poor geo. Clearly a bunch of bike designers at Spec disagree, along with thousands of riders? Like I bought it after test riding it because I really liked how it felt.
It does not have the kind of geo that favours a mid riding position. Which the rrs is pushing you back into. I'm a big fan of this, for the record.
To call the geo poor as a whole isn't accurate I suppose, but for this application it might be.
And as to specialized knowing what they're doing, I'm not so sure about that. Their recent designs would indicate otherwise, when compared to their competition. Good bikes, but perhaps not as good.
 
Seems kind of silly to say the Levo has some kind of objectively poor geo. Clearly a bunch of bike designers at Spec disagree, along with thousands of riders? Like I bought it after test riding it because I really liked how it felt.
It is objectively bad in that its not size specific, having the same length CS but increased wheelbase / reach across sizes is probably mostly an optimization done for manufacturing purposes. There has also been a short CS trend/fashion so one could argue that they are doing it for that reason and just running CS as short as possible -- but they are not actually doing that, I am pretty sure they could be even shorter if that was the real purpose.

So either they are running varying F/R ratio across sizes for manufacturing purposes, or as some kind of fashion/trend thing, and I think its reasonable to argue thats objectively non-optimal. If there is an ideal F/R ratio (Which I think its easy to argue there is, even if its different for different riders/terrain), then only one of the sizes will have it

Anyway I am sure the Levo 4 rides great for most riders, and not having ridden it I have zero reason to bash it per se
 
It does not have the kind of geo that favours a mid riding position. Which the rrs is pushing you back into. I'm a big fan of this, for the record.
To call the geo poor as a whole isn't accurate I suppose, but for this application it might be.
And as to specialized knowing what they're doing, I'm not so sure about that. Their recent designs would indicate otherwise, when compared to their competition. Good bikes, but perhaps not as good.
I'm curious. Is your concern not enough weight on the front wheel, or too much?
 
Seems kind of silly to say the Levo has some kind of objectively poor geo. Clearly a bunch of bike designers at Spec disagree, along with thousands of riders? Like I bought it after test riding it because I really liked how it felt.
Just because many people buy something does not by definition mean that it's better than other available alternatives.

Specialized marketing is on par with, for example, Apple marketing. Pay the highest price and therefore get the best.

Times change.
 
I'm curious. Is your concern not enough weight on the front wheel, or too much?
The longer front center, shorter rear end requires active weighting of the front end through the hands.
Modern bikes are moving towards more balanced front/rear centers, that results in less weight being required to go through the hands, and a more upright riding position. This typically results in a geo that does not require as much input by the rider to achieve optimum front end traction. Because you're not having to anticipate and make fore/aft weight shifts on the bike, it tends to be faster on blind trails.
It does require an adjustment period to learn to ride more through your feet/hips.
Can't say if it's better for everyone, but it is where the market is going.

My concern with the rrs on a long front center/short rear center bike like the levo would be not being able to weight the front end effectively. But perhaps the shortened reach and high stack allows that ?
I suspect the softened fork is going to be pretty critical.
 
I was curious so I decided to put numbers to it. Standing on the bike putting no weight through the hands, the Levo 4 in long chainstay is 91 / 165 front / rear.

Definitely seems aggressively rear biased. That doesn't change regardless of my headset/bars of course. So the question is if the RR stops me from weighting the front while cornering to some degree. If that's even necessary. I freely admit I'm at best a mediocre rider, but I've noticed my rear tire loses traction first while cornering, which I prefer because it's recoverable. I'm not sure the exact relationship there between weight and traction. My intuition there says weight is good up to a point, and then the extra weight pushing sideways overcomes the grip.

Edit: Whoops. Just realized this was without the battery in the bike, which actually adds more weight to the front. I'll re-measure with it.
 
Last edited:
I was curious so I decided to put numbers to it. Standing on the bike putting no weight through the hands, the Levo 4 in long chainstay is 91 / 165 front / rear.

Definitely seems aggressively rear biased. That doesn't change regardless of my headset/bars of course. So the question is if the RR stops me from weighting the front while cornering to some degree. If that's even necessary. I freely admit I'm at best a mediocre rider, but I've noticed my rear tire loses traction first while cornering, which I prefer because it's recoverable. I'm not sure the exact relationship there between weight and traction. My intuition there says weight is good up to a point, and then the extra weight pushing sideways overcomes the grip.

Edit: Whoops. Just realized this was without the battery in the bike, which actually adds more weight to the front. I'll re-measure with it.
Take the wheelbase of the bike, subtract the rear center, and divide that by the rear center.
That equates to 1.88 on a s4 levo in the 435mm stay position, or 1.84 in the long position.
1.82-1.84 has traditionally been a number targeted in enduro bikes for the last 6 years.
1.8 is kind of the "long chainstay gang", and 1.9 and higher is old school, "guaranteed to wash unless you ride the front like a unicycle" territory.
A smaller than s4 levo 4 has more favourable numbers due to specialized's lack of size specific chainstays. Many manufacturers medium bikes handle better than their large and xl sizes because of that.
 
Take the wheelbase of the bike, subtract the rear center, and divide that by the rear center.
That equates to 1.88 on a s4 levo in the 435mm stay position, or 1.84 in the long position.
1.82-1.84 has traditionally been a number targeted in enduro bikes for the last 6 years.
1.8 is kind of the "long chainstay gang", and 1.9 and higher is old school, "guaranteed to wash unless you ride the front like a unicycle" territory.
A smaller than s4 levo 4 has more favourable numbers due to specialized's lack of size specific chainstays. Many manufacturers medium bikes handle better than their large and xl sizes because of that.
I'm confused why you think the levo has a fundamentally poor f/r ratio, when you just stated it's f/r ratio is smack dab in the range people are targeting for enduro bikes?
 
I'm confused why you think the levo has a fundamentally poor f/r ratio, when you just stated it's f/r ratio is smack dab in the range people are targeting for enduro bikes?
They were targeting.
It seems to be closer to 1.8 now.
And the s4 levo 4 in the standard short stay version is poor. It's acceptable in long, but not optimal.
My opinions of the geo are almost certainly colored by the day I spent on one in the short setting.
 
Do you find that there's still an advantage to be had on bikes like the levo, that have a fundamentally poor f/r ratio ?
Or better results with bikes closer to that 1.8 ratio ?
TLDR: The RR stem gives more consistent front end loading, over a traditional stem as you steer and counter steer for balance. You need to setup the front for the level of load it gets at neutral to get good traction. A long chainstay gives a smaller differential between max load on the front and neutral load relative to a short chainstay making front setup balancing support and traction easier.

While front center/rear center ratio is important, it’s less crucial than good setup for front traction. My very first customer from a few years ago is a big 350lbs 6’6” rider on an S6 Levo with a 532mm reach, 442mm chainstay and ~1.98 f/r center ratio. He loves his RR stem particularly flat cornering which is its biggest benefit to me and many of my customers, and he’s on the taller Gen 1 150mm RR stem that puts you even further up and back away from the front end. Along with that, I spent a lot of time originally developing the RR stem on a M/L Trek Slash that had a ~1.84 f/r center ratio again with the Gen 1 150mm RR stem among many other bikes with even higher f/r center ratios.

I’ve even gone as far as a ~2.175 f/r center ratio on my prototype Mule TR frame with a 569mm reach, 423mm chainstay, and 1343mm wheelbase specifically to test if you really needed a super long reach to work with this, and if a rearward weight bias would really be an issue with it. That bike was super rear biased, and horizontally with the Gen 1 150mm RR stem my hands were further behind the front axle than my feet were from the rear axle as you can see in the picture. That bike used a very soft fork and front tire pressure relative to my weight and tended to have the rear drift out with a front end that was very eager to change direction and turn. It was very fun to ride, and surprised me how much I liked it.

A lack of front load is not typically by itself what leads to the front washing out and much like with cars, too much front load leads to understeer aka front pushing, and too much rear load leads to oversteer aka rear drifting. The difference is that on bikes we also have to balance standing up and falling over. This is actually where the bigger issue is. When you are cornering, and you can’t feel and keep your balance point by effectively steering and counter steering, you can start to fall over which unloads the tires which are the only thing keeping you turning. This leads you to instead continue going straight as the object in motion that you are while you fall over which looks like the front suddenly washing out.

On a forward offset stem, your hands move side to side substantially as you turn the bars felt as wheelflop. Unless you are staying right on top of that motion by weighting the bars, this can make it harder to keep your balance point loading into your tire instead of moving off it to one side or the other. This is part of why riders tend to like low bars with a long stem and feel they need to keep weight on the hands.

With the RR stem, your hands are much closer to the contact patch of the tire along the steering geometry, so they flop side to side less and keep you more consistently over the tire when balancing. This allows you to ride more through your feet with no weight in your hands while keeping good feel for balancing. With all your weight through your feet at neutral, you setup the fork to have optimal traction with zero hand load and then can always add load from there as needed. When you setup the fork to handle optimally when you are loaded say 20% on the hands as your neutral, then any amount less than that has the front underloaded with poor traction. This means that you have to always be optimally loaded at the hands or more for the fork to have optimal traction instead of optimal traction already being the baseline even with no load for a more consistent feel for traction.

Chainstay length comes into play also for consistency of front loading. Generally, I prefer a very long chainstay like on my current favorite Mule EN with a 445mm reach on a 697mm stack, and a 507mm chainstay for its also 1343mm wheelbase giving a ~1.649 f/r center ratio. The main potential advantages of a short chainstay are that the front wheel is much easier to lift, the rear wheel is easier to place, the bike can make very quick short direction changes very easily and quickly, the rear gets overloaded to carve and shralp easier, and generally they can make the bike feel more playful and fun. The main disadvantage of the super short chainstay is that it’s less stable, and can be a bit too eager to change direction leading to a more darty feeling and less settled front end which can also be quite exciting. Also, the front has less weight on it at neutral position, but the same weight on it at max loading, so balancing a fork and front tire setup that gives great traction and support is a bit harder. A long chainstay gives a more consistent front loading because it goes from say 100% load to 40% load at neutral where a super short chainstay may be like 100% load to 30% load at neutral.

All f/r center ratios that you will find on any bike will be between the two extremes I’ve run and found can work great with the RR stem so long as you get the front end setup well to work with its range of loads when riding with all your weight through your feet. The long chainstay just basically makes getting that consistent front end feel and setup easier to achieve.

IMG_2227.webp
 
Last edited:
TLDR: The RR stem gives more consistent front end loading, over a traditional stem as you steer and counter steer for balance. You need to setup the front for the level of load it gets at neutral to get good traction. A long chainstay gives a smaller differential between max load on the front and neutral load relative to a short chainstay making front setup balancing support and traction easier.

While front center/rear center ratio is important, it’s less crucial than good setup for front traction. My very first customer from a few years ago is a big 350lbs 6’6” rider on an S6 Levo with a 532mm reach, 442mm chainstay and ~1.98 f/r center ratio. He loves his RR stem particularly flat cornering which is its biggest benefit to me and many of my customers, and he’s on the taller Gen 1 150mm RR stem that puts you even further up and back away from the front end. Along with that, I spent a lot of time originally developing the RR stem on a M/L Trek Slash that had a ~1.84 f/r center ratio again with the Gen 1 150mm RR stem among many other bikes with even higher f/r center ratios.

I’ve even gone as far as a ~2.175 f/r center ratio on my prototype Mule TR frame with a 569mm reach, 423mm chainstay, and 1343mm wheelbase specifically to test if you really needed a super long reach to work with this, and if a reward weight bias would really be an issue with it. That bike was super rear biased, and horizontally with the Gen 1 150mm RR stem my hands were further behind the front axle than my feet were from the rear axle as you can see in the picture. That bike used a very soft fork and front tire pressure relative to my weight and tended to have the rear drift out with a front end that was very eager to change direction and turn. It was very fun to ride, and surprised me how much I liked it.

A lack of front load is not typically what leads to the front washing out and much like with cars, too much front load leads to understeer aka front pushing, and too much rear load leads to oversteer aka rear drifting. The difference is that on bikes we also have to balance standing up and falling over. This is actually where the bigger issue is. When you are cornering, and you can’t feel and keep your balance point by effectively steering and counter steering, you can start to fall over which unloads the tires which are the only thing keeping you turning. This leads you to instead continue going straight as the object in motion that you are while you fall over which looks like the front suddenly washing out.

On a forward offset stem, your hands move side to side substantially as you turn the bars felt as wheelflop. Unless you are staying right on top of that motion by weighting the bars, this can make it harder to keep your balance point loading into your tire instead of moving off it to one side or the other. This is part of why riders tend to like low bars with a long stem and feel they need to keep say weight on the hands.

With the RR stem, your hands are much closer to the contact patch of the tire along the steering geometry, so they flop side to side less and keep you more consistently over the tire when balancing. This allows you to ride more through your feet with no weight in your hands while keeping good feel for balancing. With all your weight through your feet at neutral, you setup the fork to have optimal traction with zero hand load and then can always add load from there as needed. When you setup the fork to handle optimally when you are loaded say 20% on the hands as your neutral, then any amount less than that has the front underloaded with poor traction. This means that you have to always be optimally loaded at the hands or more for the fork to have optimal traction instead of optimal traction already being the baseline even with no load for a more consistent feel for traction.

Chainstay length comes into play also for consistency of front loading. Generally, I prefer a very long chainstay like on my current favorite Mule EN with a 445mm reach on a 697mm stack, and a 507mm chainstay for its also 1343mm wheelbase giving a ~1.649 f/r center ratio. The main potential advantages of a short chainstay are that the front wheel is much easier to lift, the rear wheel is easier to place, the bike can make very quick short direction changes very easily and quickly, the rear gets overloaded to carve and shralp easier, and generally they can make the bike feel more playful and fun. The main disadvantage of the super short chainstay is that it’s less stable, and can be a bit too eager to change direction leading to a more darty feeling and less settled front end which can also be quite exciting. Also, the front has less weight on it at neutral position, but the same weight on it at max loading, so balancing a fork and front tire setup that gives great traction and support is a bit harder. A long chainstay gives a more consistent front loading because it goes from say 100% load to 40% load at neutral where a super short chainstay may be like 100% load to 30% load at neutral.

All f/r center ratios that you will find on any bike will be between the two extremes I’ve run and found can work great with the RR stem so long as you get the front end setup well to work with its range of loads when riding with all your weight through your feet. The long chainstay just basically just makes getting that consistent front end feel and setup easier to achieve.

View attachment 180378
Very interesting. I obviously have only so much adjustability on a coil fork. I find I get decent sag on the current fork, when weighting through the feet. The next softer spring is quite significantly softer, and I'm already on the high end of the recommended weight range for my current spring. I did recently add pressure to my Genie when I switched to the more progressive cascade linkage.
 
TLDR: The RR stem gives more consistent front end loading, over a traditional stem as you steer and counter steer for balance. You need to setup the front for the level of load it gets at neutral to get good traction. A long chainstay gives a smaller differential between max load on the front and neutral load relative to a short chainstay making front setup balancing support and traction easier.
Well that was a heck of a data dump, thanks !
So fork setup technically will become more critical with a higher ratio and the rrs.
I think a lot of people are curious about the concept, but are waiting for that definitive "this is the one thing that explains why it works". What I'm interpreting is that it's a sum of a few factors.
The relationship between hand position and wheel flop I find particularly intriguing.
 
Very interesting. I obviously have only so much adjustability on a coil fork. I find I get decent sag on the current fork, when weighting through the feet. The next softer spring is quite significantly softer, and I'm already on the high end of the recommended weight range for my current spring. I did recently add pressure to my Genie when I switched to the more progressive cascade linkage.
The thing you are aiming for is balance. If the front and rear compress evenly when bouncing up and down loading through your feet, and the front doesn’t feel too stiff and the rear doesn’t feel too soft with similar travel usage front and rear on trail, then you are likely in a pretty good spot. 😉 If all that looks good and it feels good, then you probably don’t need to change anything further until you find a need or want to experiment. Don’t be afraid to experiment though. You never learn if you don’t experiment.
 
Well that was a heck of a data dump, thanks !
So fork setup technically will become more critical with a higher ratio and the rrs.
I think a lot of people are curious about the concept, but are waiting for that definitive "this is the one thing that explains why it works". What I'm interpreting is that it's a sum of a few factors.
The relationship between hand position and wheel flop I find particularly intriguing.
100% It’s a whole set of factors. This is part of why I’d say it’s more similar to getting a new bike with a different geo rather than just a stem change as it feels like much more than just switching from say a 40mm stem to a 35mm stem… 😅 The main one is the tuned Reversed offset for best steering dynamics. The Raised height is the second big factor for improving body position and helps the Reversed offset work with modern geos. The changes to suspension and tire setup for that change in body position brings it all together, and that can be furthered by pairing the bikes geo to it. Just doing one without the others only gives a partial view of the whole concept. The more parts you can get, the better it will be, and it works best when they are all together.
 
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,768
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top