[Krause]

I have a 2000 Zaskar X that I fully rebuilt years back with a 120mm stem and a 680mm bar (minimum the enve bar could be cut down to and it was close to the stock bars size).

Recently it developed a crack and im seeing most bars now can only be cut down to around 740mm since everything seems to be moving toward wider bars and shorter stems. I picked up a new ENVE M6 which was warranty replaced from the cracked bar and paired it with a shorter 100mm stem (might need some dialing in still). While it feels ok after some initial getting use to it i'm unsure if there is any negatives to doing so on these older bikes? Should I be trying to find bars that can be cut shorter again? Are wider bars/shorter stems better even on older frames like these as long as you're still able to run an 80mm or greater stem?

I must admit whats taking me the longest to get use to is the looks since i've ran 120mm stems on almost everything i've ridden in the past 20 years, but i'll just get use to it if it's actually better.

 

[mik_git]

I think you'll find that around these parts, a 2000 ,model frame is consider "new" (definitely not old!).

I got some 3T 720 bars cut down to 660 on my 96 Xizang and run it with a 120 stem and it is fine. I also have the same bars still at 720 on my Yeti ARC, initially had a 100 stem that was a bit short, now...er 110 I think and it better.

Thing is, if you are riding the bike and can get a comfortable position...thats what matters, doesn't mater if it 800 with 50 stem, o5 500 with a 150 stem, if you can get the fit and are comfortable, job done.

 

[Krause]

I think you'll find that around these parts, a 2000 ,model frame is consider "new" (definitely not old!).

I got some 3T 720 bars cut down to 660 on my 96 Xizang and run it with a 120 stem and it is fine. I also have the same bars still at 720 on my Yeti ARC, initially had a 100 stem that was a bit short, now...er 110 I think and it better.

Thing is, if you are riding the bike and can get a comfortable position...thats what matters, doesn't mater if it 800 with 50 stem, o5 500 with a 150 stem, if you can get the fit and are comfortable, job done.

Thanks! I considered it “classic” since it still falls in the category of bikes that ran with 110-130mm stems stock so any advice would best come from those familiar with it.

I’m starting to think that I might actually need to upsize the stem partly to 110mm from the 100mm to size myself perfectly on the seat, right now I’m in the same position that I was with the 680mm bars and 120mm stem which feels good but with my arms extended I still feel like the seat should be around 10mm further back (and it’s at the max back position).

 

[Spectre]

I'm running a 740mm bar with a 70mm stem on a 1995 Kona Explosif and actually like the handling better than with the original 580mm bar with 110mm stem. It feels less twitchy, but still pretty quick handling compared to the original setup.

 

[Mr Crudley]

I have 740mm bars with 60mm stem on a 2000 Heckler and it feels much better to me. More planted and comfortable.

I had 680mm with 100mm stem for a long time and don't miss it at all now.

 

[DeoreDX]

I went from 580/130 to a 720 with a 80mm stem on my old '95 Wheeler and really liked the change.

 

[jestep]

I've switched most of my older stuff to shorter stem (50 - 70mm) and wider bars as well. Pretty much an all around improvement, descending especially, as long as you get the bar height correct.

 

[Sparticus]

I think you'll find that around these parts, a 2000 ,model frame is consider "new" (definitely not old!).

Um, wait. OP said "2000."
mik_git might you have thot he said "2020?"
In my book 2000 is def "old." More like ancient, in fact.

Thing is, if you are riding the bike and can get a comfortable position...thats what matters, doesn't mater if it 800 with 50 stem, o5 500 with a 150 stem, if you can get the fit and are comfortable, job done.

Totally agree with you here.
=sParty

 

[mik_git]

Um, wait. OP said "2000."
mik_git might you have thot he said "2020?"
In my book 2000 is def "old." More like ancient, in fact.

Nope, there has been a bazillion discussions on it in here, can't remember what was decided, if it was pre 2000 or 1997 and earlier. Some say it should be a sliding scale, other not. Personally I don't care that much (no, no I do don't , that not why my Xizang is specifically a 1996), but some people do. Some think 90's stuff is too new for here, but the average age of bikes in here would be early 90's I'd think.

 

[Sparticus]

Nope, there has been a bazillion discussions on it in here, can't remember what was decided, if it was pre 2000 or 1997 and earlier. Some say it should be a sliding scale, other not. Personally I don't care that much (no, no I do don't , that not why my Xizang is specifically a 1996), but some people do. Some think 90's stuff is too new for here, but the average age of bikes in here would be early 90's I'd think.

Oh. I didn't know we were calling the parameters of old/new based on forum context. I thought were making the call based on whether or not the bike was actually old. 2000 is old. Maybe it doesn't qualify for vintage/retro/classic status, but 2000 is relic. That's all I'm saying. Sorry for misunderstanding.
=sParty

 

[mik_git]

yeah sorry, just meant in the context of the sub forum ("around these parts")

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Bikes go from new to unloved outdated crap. Eventually that unloved outdated crap becomes vintage and it's cool again.

Year 2000 sits in the middle and won't be cool until late September this year.

One day that 2005 Giant NRS will be desirable. Lol, as if...

Grumps