It’s not the same man. I’m sorry. These guys designed something that isn’t just rise. That bar has 12 degree backsweep and would be totally different feel. It’s also not designed for mtb use flex/compliance. You’re getting into a totally different feel just for looks.
Weird Reversed Stem Geo / Chat
- Thread starter Rob Rides EMTB
- Start date
DirkWisely
Well-known member
But those are for BMX. Won't people think I'm cooler than I am?
Paco_Loco
Member
12 degree back-sweep is certainly a bit more than the typical 8 or 9 degrees that MTB bars use, but it is not unheard of for MTB (e.g. SQLab make some with 12 degree sweep).
Here's another example of a 150mm rise BMX bar with a 10 degree sweep.
The compliance/flex of a chromoly handlebar versus an aluminium or carbon bar would not be a noticeable difference.
AI isn’t always right, but I guess we’re both wrong?
Per chat gpt:
You’re basically comparing:
- Traditional stem (bar clamp in front of steerer) + bars rolled back
- High-rise / direct-over-steerer style stem (bar clamp centered over steerer)
→ with the same final hand position
At first glance it seems like they should feel identical—but they don’t. Here’s why:
The key difference: where the bar rotates from
Even if your hands end up in the same place, the bar’s rotation point and sweep orientation change things.
Steering feel & leverage
- With a forward clamp stem + rolled bars:
- You’re rotating the bar backward around a point that’s in front of the steerer
- This effectively changes the sweep and leverage feel
- Steering can feel a bit slower or “floppier” because your input arc is altered
- With a centered (over-steerer) clamp:
- The bar rotates more naturally around the steering axis
- Feels more direct and neutral
- More consistent with how the bike was designed to steer
Love the AI slop. How about you say what you think?
I tried 12 degree backsweep SQlab bars but didn't like them. Now have 10 degree PNW loam high rise bars. Work fine for me.
I did, I got called wrong. You guys ok?
Why are we pooping on a small company that made something for mtbs that people who have tried it seem to really like? I have no clue how this would feel, I may or may not like it, but I understand how it works and how that cannot be accomplished with just a normal stem and high rise bar.
Brawwp said:
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
The RR (Raised Reversed) stem is not the same as a very tall bar. The RR stem is both Raised and Reversed. Due to this your hands will be notably behind the steering axis of your frame instead of in front as they traditionally are. A really tall bar or even a long steerer tube with a bunch of spacers or a stem riser would just be higher up without the Reversed offset, and as such will perform a lot differently. A really tall bar is also not ideal because it will move your hands quite significantly relative to the steering axis when adjusting bar role, and is more reliant on having a very strong hold at the bar clamp on the stem to keep the bar from slipping forward and back.What I don't understand with this whole thing is, if you want your bars in that position then why not use a riser bar and a "normal" stem rather than this bizarre looking stem and a regular handlebar?
If you ran something like a BMX cruiser handlebar the bike would actually look good, rather than.... not good
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
If you rolled a really tall riser bar back to achieve a similar geometry, you would need to roll it from its notably in front of the steering axis position back to about 40mm - 55mm behind the steering axis to achieve the same hand to steering axis relationship. This would give a substantial degree of downsweep to the bar instead of upsweep which greatly affects how you can load and interact with the bar dynamically. Most riders feel a little bit of upsweep works best for their bar roll, but individual preferences and wrist ergonomics dominate. This is why it’s best to get the geo largely from the stem and then use a lower bar that can be rolled forward or back to your preference without substantially moving your grip position forward or back.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
Simply turning your existing stem around will not achieve the same offset as the tuned Reversed offset of the RR stem or achieve the Raised height. I tested anything from below traditional height to about 80mm taller than the taller Gen 1 150mm RR stem, and 70mm offset forward all the way to 70mm offset Reversed over the course of about 3 years across 9 different bikes with differing frame and wheel sizes and varying geos always benchmarking against a traditional 50mm - 35mm stem. The RR stems geometry is what gave the consistently fastest times and most control. The Reversed offset is the main feature to me, and works best in combination with the Raised height.But you can mount a stem 'wrong way round', shocking I know.
Can not exactly the same geometry be achieved by having a reversed short short stem on an uncut or extended steerer? And if not, exactly why not? No jargon please, KISS. Thanks.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
As you mentioned AI isn’t always right. It’s best used as a way to aggregate large amounts of well established information concisely. Tuned Reversed offsets for stems are a new thing, so it doesn’t have a lot of credible sources to pull information from in making claims about them. It’s been fun for me seeing how radically different the information is when asking various AI’s about how a reversed offset stem would work over the course of introducing them. It’s gone from saying that they are dangerous and fundamentally unstable to saying that it’s a performance advantage… AI doesn’t have critical thinking skills or a gauge for judging truth, it’s just a predictive model for giving its best “guess” on what you most likely want it to tell you based on what it can source others having said online. When there is not enough well established information, it can start combing information in ways that aren’t true and even “hallucinate” to make up false information.AI isn’t always right, but I guess we’re both wrong?
Per chat gpt:
You’re basically comparing:
- Traditional stem (bar clamp in front of steerer) + bars rolled back
- High-rise / direct-over-steerer style stem (bar clamp centered over steerer)
→ with the same final hand position
At first glance it seems like they should feel identical—but they don’t. Here’s why:
Even if your hands end up in the same place, the bar’s rotation point and sweep orientation change things.
Steering feel & leverage
- With a forward clamp stem + rolled bars:
- You’re rotating the bar backward around a point that’s in front of the steerer
- This effectively changes the sweep and leverage feel
- Steering can feel a bit slower or “floppier” because your input arc is altered
- With a centered (over-steerer) clamp:
- The bar rotates more naturally around the steering axis
- Feels more direct and neutral
- More consistent with how the bike was designed to steer
The bar centers location assuming a rigid structure makes no difference as long as the hands are in the same spot. The key point though is that hands in the same spot is not just about offset. It’s also critically about sweep angles. Rolling a bar back to the same offset will give notable different sweep angles which quite dramatically influence dynamic loading semiseparately even from the steering axis offset of the grips.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
A bar with enough backsweep to put your hands in a similar position to the RR stem of about 40mm - 55mm behind the steering axis would have such a large amount of backsweep, ie. about 22 degrees or more on a 35mm stem, that getting a good bend in the elbow in the attack position would be quite uncomfortable at the wrist for most riders. Along with that, the change in wrist angle affects how you can apply loads to the bar dynamically. As such, it would compromise the ride dynamics too much to fully take advantage of the Reversed offsets steering geometry. That bar would also need to have a minimum of about 80mm of rise to be a comparable height. Most bars that have very high levels of back sweep sweep forward before they sweep back among other shape adjustments to get the grips to not actually sit as much further back as their increased sweep angle would imply, and aren’t often offered in the widths we use for mtbs.
AI trawls the internet aggregating large amounts of the most commonly presented information, which may or may not be correct.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
It can yes. In fact, this is a great link to a Reversed short short stem that can be run on an uncut or extended steerer. It even has a window for spacers put above or below the steerer tube clamp to fine tune height down to the mm and can be used with whatever bar you want in 35mm diameter or 31.8mm diameter with the included bar shims.
Great super short stem that can be Reversed!
So the same can be achieved without the purchase of a custom $400 stem.It can yes. In fact, this is a great link to a Reversed short short stem that can be run on an uncut or extended steerer. It even has a window for spacers put above or below the steerer tube clamp to fine tune height down to the mm and can be used with whatever bar you want in 35mm diameter or 31.8mm diameter with the included bar shims.
Great super short stem that can be Reversed!
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
Not really, as there aren’t any -15mm stems on the market, and the closest thing is explicitly advised by its manufacturer not to be run in reverse, has no height adjustment, only accepts 31.8mm bars, is lower even at max allowed height, and doesn’t even cost much less… The reason I made the RR stem was because there weren’t any otherwise commercially available ways to safely achieve the geo I found performed best. I started selling them because I figured that I’m not weird enough in my riding style or use case that it would only be beneficial for me. The overwhelming positive reception from customers I’d say shows that it works for a wide range of riders.So the same can be achieved without the purchase of a custom $400 stem.
Paco_Loco
Member
For the record, I think it's really cool what you (BeMoreBikes) are doing in terms of pushing the accepted wisdom about MTB handlebar position and trying new designs that are genuinely outside the box. This is how real progress begins.
It's also clearly working in some way, with some big industry names getting on board with trying it, and seemingly with good results so far - huge kudos for getting this far with it
Also, I understand the whole bar roll and sweep points you are making.
All I am saying is that you can potentially achieve the same thing with a no-rise stem and high-rise bar (assuming you could find a bar with the right up/back sweep for the angle you wanted to run it at, which may in fact prove to be not possible to find currently depending on what those desired values were).
Personally I'd love to see BMB some day make their own set (or range) of custom designed high-rise handlebars that could deliver their take on rider position whilst being used with a more "conventional" looking stem. That would be really cool, IMHO.
It's also clearly working in some way, with some big industry names getting on board with trying it, and seemingly with good results so far - huge kudos for getting this far with it
Also, I understand the whole bar roll and sweep points you are making.
All I am saying is that you can potentially achieve the same thing with a no-rise stem and high-rise bar (assuming you could find a bar with the right up/back sweep for the angle you wanted to run it at, which may in fact prove to be not possible to find currently depending on what those desired values were).
Personally I'd love to see BMB some day make their own set (or range) of custom designed high-rise handlebars that could deliver their take on rider position whilst being used with a more "conventional" looking stem. That would be really cool, IMHO.
Genuine progress is made only when commonly accepted wisdom is discarded and new ideas explored with open minds.For the record, I think it's really cool what you (BeMoreBikes) are doing in terms of pushing the accepted wisdom about MTB handlebar position and trying new designs that are genuinely outside the box. This is how real progress begins.
It's also clearly working in some way, with some big industry names getting on board with trying it, and seemingly with good results so far - huge kudos for getting this far with it
Also, I understand the whole bar roll and sweep points you are making.
All I am saying is that you can potentially achieve the same thing with a no-rise stem and high-rise bar (assuming you could find a bar with the right up/back sweep for the angle you wanted to run it at, which may in fact prove to be not possible to find currently depending on what those desired values were).
Personally I'd love to see BMB some day make their own set (or range) of custom designed high-rise handlebars that could deliver their take on rider position whilst being used with a more "conventional" looking stem. That would be really cool, IMHO.
You on your period? Just full on attack mode this past week.So the same can be achieved without the purchase of a custom $400 stem.
People who have tried the bmb stem seem to really enjoy it. It’s been on Rob’s crestline since he made this thread from what I’ve seen. If you aren’t interested in trying something like this then why come on here to make trouble? If you think you can do it cheaper then go try that? No reason to attack this company to say you can do it cheaper lol.
Not an attack on anyone or anything, merely stating that (IMO) experimenting with a combination of widely available components would be appropriate.
And forget the attempted juvenile misogynist petty insult in the opening of your post, ffs.
Last edited:
Having seen the BMB in the flesh and ridden it a little bit, in my opinion, you can't get near it by just changing stock components. However, a slack, tall headtudbe bike with a load of spacers and an 80mm rise bar is 'closish' to how this stem feels on an average slackness bike with a 100–120mm headtube—so it is possible to replicate the feel as a 'system.' I’ve become a convert to tall front ends, but I do think it’s very much a personal preference and tied to how and what you want to ride.
The thing that's missing from this discussion is effective bar height (bb to your hands) relative to your body size. If you're 5'8" on a medium bike vs 6'3'" on an extra large, 80mm of rise has very different effects on your riding position. I love this pic to illustrate how inconsistent bar height is across rider sizes.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
100% bikes don’t scale proportionally at all! I’m 5’8” and I find for my height the Gen 1 150mm is my preference typically on a 460mm - 480mm reach mtb. This puts my bars above my saddle at climbing height.
Both those riders are showing their saddle at climbing height which is directly correlated to rider leg length and subsequently height. The short rider has bars above their pedaling seat height, and the tall rider has bars notably below yet both were designed to be optimal for those riders sizes?
I always like to say if reach grows by say 20mm per size, and a reach of 460 is a smaller number than 630 for stack, then why does the smaller number always increase by a larger number than the bigger number? Stacks on bikes where they do change are often 20mm across the entire XS-XL size range…
A 460mm reach with a 630mm stack and a 440mm chainstay fairly regular size M geo should therefore be a +20mm 480mm reach with a +27mm 657mm stack and a +19mm 459mm chainstay for a L.
I don’t know of any company that truly scales proportionally. Forbidden is closest and doing it honestly quite well, but their stacks still grow too slow to be fully proportional.
Bufort
New Member
- Mar 26, 2026
- 31
- 32
This is because the size a frame grows by is in actual fact, one distance, at an angle. It's just given as two distances for ease. But a frame size increase of 30mm reach and 20mm stack for example is actually just 36mm at 33°...
So it isn't simply "a bigger frame should increase in all directions", it depends on what direction the body grows by. Assuming a saddle (or hip joint) is at the same height as the handlebars, a taller rider wouldn't need a higher bar at all - if a rider's arm length increases with torso length. Taking that as a base, the stack wouldn't grow at all. (image A)
If the saddle/hip joint is lower than the handlebar, the frame size would increase at that angle (image B). In theory, a lower handlebar would actually require a lower stack height for a taller rider, unless you want the taller rider to be in a more upright position.
There's obviously a lot of variables - seat height (or leg length standing) riding stance, bar/stem combo. But the important thing is the direction in which the riders upper body triangle increases, and this is at an angle. Which angle? Debatable. But a single distance at an angle nonetheless.
BeMoreBikes
New Member
- Mar 4, 2026
- 64
- 114
This ignores that the taller rider would also run a higher seat height because people get taller from the waist down along with from the waist up. The taller riders taller seat height would need a taller bar just to maintain being level with the increased seat height. Even a short rider having a seat higher than their bars would still mean the bars for a taller rider on a proportionally taller seat version would have higher bars in an absolute sense that way it will maintain how much proportional saddle drop it has to the bars.
The angle to increase the size along on a 460mm reach and 630mm stack is 58 degrees at 780mm length. It’s along this 58 degree angle line that the stack and reach would increase proportionally. What you are showing is how two riders with the same inseam and seat height may have different cockpit preferences due to differences in arm and torso lengths.
I'm keen and yet to see a Pro on a DH or Enduro track test both back to back and see what the stop watch says.
Reece Wilson is the closest I have seen (won National round last week) and I guess we'll find out this weekend coming how good it is or isn't against the clock.
I appreciate feel and enjoyment is more important for 99% of us on here, but typically speed / capability and enjoyment closely align.
Reece Wilson is the closest I have seen (won National round last week) and I guess we'll find out this weekend coming how good it is or isn't against the clock.
I appreciate feel and enjoyment is more important for 99% of us on here, but typically speed / capability and enjoyment closely align.
On the AON Racing bikes in S. Korea - Stan/Reece : Stan's bike.
@BeMoreBikes When will this be available to buy?
Fitted my onoff 10mm today. Thanks to @CJG for posting the deal a while back in this thread, came to less than £20!
Replaced a spank 40mm with this giving 16mm rise and 10mm length. With spank 50mm risers.
Feels decent, makes me think i could have gotten away with a medium frame 465mm reach rather than the large 485mm.
Hopefully it will help with my damaged back and give more confidence.
Ive been wary of front end grip since a serious washout crash a few years ago resulting in puncture lung, broken ribs and clavicle. So certainly don't want to lose any grip or feeling.
Haven't tried to reverse it yet, will try that once ive gotten some more ride time on this new bike.
Replaced a spank 40mm with this giving 16mm rise and 10mm length. With spank 50mm risers.
Feels decent, makes me think i could have gotten away with a medium frame 465mm reach rather than the large 485mm.
Hopefully it will help with my damaged back and give more confidence.
Ive been wary of front end grip since a serious washout crash a few years ago resulting in puncture lung, broken ribs and clavicle. So certainly don't want to lose any grip or feeling.
Haven't tried to reverse it yet, will try that once ive gotten some more ride time on this new bike.