I thought, too expensive, bit of a gimmick, won’t work, too good to be true.

Similar thoughts I had before I bought a Paramo top and then had my opinion completely turned around with that.

Well the RedShift stem was another expensive big gamble. What’s the difference in just taking a bit more air out my 650b race king 2.0 tyres on my Camino Ti bike?

Well, I gambled and paid my money to amazon, installed it on my bike and then read the instructions (do this first) and tried it out in the real world rather than just the man shed.

Did the gamble pay off. Was watching all those you tube vids that praise the stem worth it?

And the bigger question, was the RedShift stem actually worth the extra weight, as it is a tad heavier?


A big yes, I’m a convert. It’s surprised even me.

Normally I run my tires a little low to give smoothness and comfort for the off road sections I do, which I join up with road sections. However this makes the road sections I feel a bit slower.

I’ve now found I still get the same comfort with this stem and can inflate my tyres to a slightly higher pressure which I feel gives a better compromise over road, off road, track and gravely bits.

I’ve found that I feel less fatigue in my arms and upper body for a similar routes I’ve done in the past with simulate mileage.

You can feel the movement in the bars and squashiness if you push down when stationary, but in the real world when you are riding I’ve found you don’t feel this movement.

It won’t be coming off my bike. However I’ve only tried it with light luggage and not in full bikepacking setup, so we will see how that goes.

https://youtu.be/XHceEkwI9jU

https://www.instagram.com/p/Btl_ZWrA_Ri ... hare_sheet


Anyone use one? Thoughts?

Good to hear as I've been looking at one, What is the best price you found?

Welcome to 1990

I've been looking at them too for my knackered wrists. Had the offer on a second d hand one, but was the 6 degrees model and I need the 30 degrees one.

Good to hear its been worth the cost

Yep, another fan here:

https://advntr.cc/redshift-shockstop-suspension-stem/

Russ from Path Less Pedalled likes it too.

I'd be interested in trying the seatposts when they are available. I think Shona said someone had one on the Silk Route and it broke but that might be beyond it's remit....

Be interested to hear how it works with, say a wildcat front harness

voodoo_simon wrote:Be interested to hear how it works with, say a wildcat front harness

If it attaches to the bars and crown simultaneously then it's a non-starter.

johnnystorm wrote:

voodoo_simon wrote:Be interested to hear how it works with, say a wildcat front harness

If it attaches to the bars and crown simultaneously then it's a non-starter.

I was afraid you’d say that, been looking at the Specialized version but that’s a non starter now

restlessshawn wrote:Welcome to 1990

To be fair flex stems were actually a good idea, just poorly executed.... a mate re-engineered his to replace the plastic bushing with cartridge ball races and it worked really well. He had to weld it up a few times mind.

Unfortunately my penchant for very short stems means I'm oot

Normally I run my tires a little low to give smoothness and comfort for the off road sections I do, which I join up with road sections. However this makes the road sections I feel a bit slower.

'feel' slower perhaps, but they won't be - or at least there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they will be slower, more the opposite.

I had a flexstem in the early 90s. They work to take the edge f more jarring bumps but you really are better off taking the general vibrations out via tyres rather than a stem or seatpost - or do both. But a firm tyre and a stem/post pivot isn't as efficient in terms of how well the bike rolls over the ground.

However .. hang a bag off the saddle on a flexpost or bar with a redshift etc and you've just suspended that weight, separating it from the bike a little. That's a good thing.

To me anything more than vibrations on a rigid bike need to be absorbed by your arms. Vibrations can be left to tyres, forks, bars, tape, frame. In fairness my CX bike is skinny steel and carbon forks and far from stiff, but anyone who wanted a stiff bike I don't understand why they would then want a moving stem. Still each to their own !

£150!

crikey.

I'm out of touch somewhat (having not picked up a bike magazine in years) but has the pursuit of 'stiffness' become an obsession for some manufacturers with others now looking for a way to combat the effects of too much?

Seems similar to the lemming type sprint towards 1 x gearing and the tide of products released shortly afterwards to counteract not having a wide enough (read low enough) range of gears.

Bearbonesnorm wrote:the pursuit of 'stiffness' become an obsession for some manufacturers with others now looking for a way to combat the effects of too much?

this, imho

voodoo_simon wrote:
I was afraid you’d say that, been looking at the Specialized version but that’s a non starter now

Not necessarily. Recently fitted a Spesh bar bag harness to my Fargo. It was almost half price at the LBS, couldn't resist. I am only using the handlebar bracket to attach it.
I've only done a single two night trip but it hasn't shifted from position and stayed good and solid throughout with a load of approx 1.5-2kg.

Bearbonesnorm wrote:I'm out of touch somewhat (having not picked up a bike magazine in years) but has the pursuit of 'stiffness' become an obsession for some manufacturers with others now looking for a way to combat the effects of too much?

Some of that perhaps, agreed. Though the 'more stiffness' thing in each year's bike launches is mostly torsional and lateral stiffness. Stiffer BBs, stiffer headtube areas, etc. Its just that stiffer isn't better, what you need is the right amount of stiffness. But it's very hard for a brand to quantify that, or as soon as you do you have to admit that a 5'5" rider on a small bike can be stronger and heavier than a 6' rider on a large bike. Easier to say '15% stiffer! Better power transfer!' except it's not really better/more power transferred, it's just transferred more immediately. Like skinny tyres at 120psi it feels faster even if it's not. I expect for the split-second reactions and moves in Pro racing, yes it's a benefit.

Shock stems and even suspension forks are more related to (imo) the ride position of most bikes that may feel fast initially but isn't good for handling shocks from the ground. Particularly gravel bikes - it's just erring towards a bad rider position for off-road use, like it or not. Slammed stems and all that Pro-aping road influence doesn't help. I've said it before, as much as suspension on an off-road vehicle is an obvious benefit it's interesting that the first MTB sus fork came at a time when MTBs still had road-like saddle to bar drop and very fwd rider positioning, 120mm+ stems etc, the roadies and arse-up racers had influenced MTB design by then. If we had more sorted off-road positions* then the need for a sus fork would have been lessened (but still there, no doubt).

*We did, if you look at the earliest MTBs - slack angles, wide bars well back from the front axle etc - it all changed in the late 80s when racing became the design driver. They weren't perfect in hindsight but arguably were no worse for general XC use than the NORBA race designs of the early 90s.

Shock stems and even suspension forks are more related to (imo) the ride position of most bikes that may feel fast initially but isn't good for handling shocks from the ground. Particularly gravel bikes - it's just erring towards a bad rider position for off-road use, like it or not. Slammed stems and all that Pro-aping road influence doesn't help. I've said it before, as much as suspension on an off-road vehicle is an obvious benefit it's interesting that the first MTB sus fork came at a time when MTBs still had road-like saddle to bar drop and very fwd rider positioning, 120mm+ stems etc, the roadies and arse-up racers had influenced MTB design by then. If we had more sorted off-road positions* then the need for a sus fork would have been lessened (but still there, no doubt).

*We did, if you look at the earliest MTBs - slack angles, wide bars well back from the front axle etc - it all changed in the late 80s when racing became the design driver. They weren't perfect in hindsight but arguably were no worse for general XC use than the NORBA race designs of the early 90s.

I'm glad you typed that out to save me the trouble

Agree completely and something else I think people don't always consider is that the prime function of suspension is maintaining 'grip' and comfort is largely a pleasant side effect. I used to get tired of explaing to people that they still had to adopt a good position when descending / riding challenging terrain and just because they had 5" or 6" of travel, couldn't simply sit down and become a passanger.

I'm glad you typed that out to save me the trouble

Agree completely and something else I think people don't always consider is that the prime function of suspension is maintaining 'grip' and comfort is largely a pleasant side effect. I used to get tired of explaing to people that they still had to adopt a good position when descending / riding challenging terrain and just because they had 5" or 6" of travel, couldn't simply sit down and become a passanger.

Me sounding into the void rather than telling you anything you didn't know : ) And much of what I was saying comes from riding a Jones vs most other bikes and preferring the 'off the back, front wheel up' handling of my old Chameleon XC set up than the long reach approach of many current hardtails (though it's good on a big susser).

Sorry .. diversions. Sus stems then - valid, not to be rubbished, though just one way to mask a more fundamental point that might be worth looking at.

I presume this suspension stem is a contemporary re-hash of the Girvan Flex Stem that very first appeared on the bike of the Raleigh MTB team in 1990. If I remember Paul Hinton was the very first rider in the country to get one.
Anyway, suffice to say they were short-lived the first time around ..........

If anyone would like to see one, here you go. We can get onto the subject of aesthetics now too.

Echoing james, it is amazing how people i've seen on recent gravel events with rock hard tyres and often poker straight arms on the hoods, then complaining about dead hands and feeling beaten up.

Other than provide a(nother) retail opportunity what does it do that a correctly sized and setup bike does not?

Last year I did the Dirty Reiver, the only thing I did to the bike was to double wrap the handlebars just to take a bit of the "sting" out of things. Didn't have any hand numbness afterwards.

There seems to be a generation of riders who ride "on the hoods" which may be fine for on-road but for off-road when using drop bars it's about the worst position possible. There's a lot less control in that position than when on the drops as well as a lot less comfort. Off-road drop bars have more flex than their on-road cousins and the further away from the stem you go the more flex you get.

It's got 20mm of travel that's in a well defined path and costs you 100gms.

A supple steel frame vs carbon might not have 20mm vertical travel (or maybe in all sorts of directions) and will weigh more than 100gms more, same for a set of wide tyres in all likelihood.

You can double wrap your bars and then get hand ache because they're too fat to grip.

Yeah, the flexstem came first, but there were lots of bike stuff from the 80s that was rubbish that's been done better now.

It's also a five minute job to switch between bikes so you can have big tyres, double wrapped bendy bars and springy steel and revel in the comfort.

There seems to be a generation of riders who ride "on the hoods" which may be fine for on-road but for off-road when using drop bars it's about the worst position possible.

Exactly. And not with the OP's bike or experience in mind re my comments re bike design and position, just a bit of a tangent .. Generally, current bike drop bar positions are based on Pro road use/design, saddle to bar drop seems greater than it was some time ago - hoods for 20-25mph in a bunch, drops for 25-30mph+ solo super-low. I don't know about everyone else but I don't do much of that that low bar then gives us

people i've seen on recent gravel events with rock hard tyres and often poker straight arms on the hoods, then complaining about dead hands and feeling beaten up.

Fargos and others avoid this, point's more about the trend for gravel bikes seeming to reject higher front ends as 'slower' or whatever. It may not be slammed-aero but it can be far more comfortable.

And good point on the bar flex - I found my very flared bars a bit unnerving at first but quite used to the spring at the drop tips now.

It's got 20mm of travel that's in a well defined path and costs you 100gms.

A supple steel frame vs carbon might not have 20mm vertical travel (or maybe in all sorts of directions) and will weigh more than 100gms more, same for a set of wide tyres in all likelihood.

This is true, sort of, though the stem isn't travel in the way that a tyre or fork is, it's a rider shock deflector more than it's suspension. Any form of suspension should minimise unsprung mass to maintain momentum best so tyres are an effective place to do it, or sus forks. If to get that 20mm of stem as travel in the suspension sense the whole bike needs to pivot up under the bar, since the rider's weight is on the bike and bar it's inefficient as suspension. No doubt effective in improving comfort though.

I think in all this the 100g aspect could be misleading also, it's light for the comfort gain yet if you did a roll-down type of test to look at the suspension and mass effect on efficiency, a set of bigger, more cushy tyres gaining 300g may perform better than a 100g sprung stem. All gets far more complex than my low mechanics ability though, esp when you look at how each item affects your input (leverage against a moving stem, pedalling a heavier wheel, etc).

Er ... so. If you like the comfort it adds, all good