Drop bar replacements?

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, DavidR

Quoted message said:

I don't watch cycle racing but I would never suggest that what is good
for racing is necessarily good for the average punter.

Then you'd be this: flat, plain wrong.

Granted track bikes and time trial bikes and triathlon bikes are special
purpose machines, adapted to those special purposes and not particularly
relevant to 'the average punter'. But the bikes ridden by the stage-race
pelotons have to be ridden an average of over 100 miles per day -
sometimes considerably over - for up to twenty days in succession, and
for most of those riders, there is then only a couple of days break
before the next race. To win such a race you have to complete it. To be
able to complete a twenty day endurance test, you have to be supremely
comfortable. If the bikes were uncomfortable, no-one would finish the
Tour or the Vuelta or the Giro.

The object of sporting goods is to make the user better/quicker than the
opposition. If a comfort/performance trade off exists, performance will
always have priority.

Give a competitor a Dutch utility bike and they will flounder. But if
racing bikes are so comfortable shouldn't Dutch shoppers be using them? Go
back to my comment at the top of this post. I would never consider 'the
average punter' to be someone on a sub 10kg bike with 120psi tyres. Did you
suppose I do?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Given the diamond frame, the racing bike is the tuned optimum compromise
between comfort and efficiency. Frankly, if you want to make a bike more
comfortable, don't tinker with the bars. Throw away the diamond frame
and lie down on the job.

Yes, if not constrained by the UCI, the racing bike would certainly look
rather different.

in message <[email hidden]>, DavidR

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, DavidR

Quoted message said:

I don't watch cycle racing but I would never suggest that what is
good for racing is necessarily good for the average punter.

Then you'd be this: flat, plain wrong.

Granted track bikes and time trial bikes and triathlon bikes are
special purpose machines, adapted to those special purposes and not
particularly relevant to 'the average punter'. But the bikes ridden by
the stage-race pelotons have to be ridden an average of over 100 miles
per day - sometimes considerably over - for up to twenty days in
succession, and for most of those riders, there is then only a couple
of days break before the next race. To win such a race you have to
complete it. To be able to complete a twenty day endurance test, you
have to be supremely comfortable. If the bikes were uncomfortable,
no-one would finish the Tour or the Vuelta or the Giro.

The object of sporting goods is to make the user better/quicker than
the opposition. If a comfort/performance trade off exists, performance
will always have priority.

But in a twenty day endurance event, there is no such trade-off. You're
comfortable, or you don't finish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given the diamond frame, the racing bike is the tuned optimum
compromise between comfort and efficiency. Frankly, if you want to
make a bike more comfortable, don't tinker with the bars. Throw away
the diamond frame and lie down on the job.

Yes, if not constrained by the UCI, the racing bike would certainly
look rather different.

Your bike is not constrained by the UCI.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

"Pete Biggs" <p@melonbiggs{remove fruit}.tc> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I go on my slick tyred mtb I am invariably get to the bottom of a
difficult hill long before the droppies. OK, a lot of people don't
like charging down hill (including many flatties) but when I am on
the drop bike I go as cautiously as them. So, accessible brake levers
give me quality time.

Most drop users have accessible levers! (And accessible from two
positions). But it seems you and your droppies are different.

OK we should agree that there is a spot in Berkshire where some
riders uniquely seem awkward using drops. Must be some inbreeding thing.

OTOH this theory could be nonsense and they are just average users.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, DavidR

> I don't watch cycle racing but I would never suggest that what is
> good for racing is necessarily good for the average punter.

Then you'd be this: flat, plain wrong.

<>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The object of sporting goods is to make the user better/quicker than
the opposition. If a comfort/performance trade off exists, performance
will always have priority.

But in a twenty day endurance event, there is no such trade-off. You're
comfortable, or you don't finish.

One second difference in reaching the finish line could be all it takes to
make the difference between winning and being an also ran. Nobody can
afford that either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, if not constrained by the UCI, the racing bike would certainly
look rather different.

Your bike is not constrained by the UCI.

But there is a lot of influence.

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Most drop users have accessible levers! (And accessible from two
positions). But it seems you and your droppies are different.

OK we should agree that there is a spot in Berkshire where some
riders uniquely seem awkward using drops. Must be some inbreeding
thing.

That's the vision I had :-)

Quoted message said:

OTOH this theory could be nonsense and they are just average users.

Then the numerous happy users who post here are all above average. Or
perhaps you're just unfortunate enough to ride with people who don't know
how to setup and use drop bars.

Let's get to the bottom line. If your point is that it's impossible to
have the handlebar and brakes set so that.....

1) the tops and hoods are comfortable +
2) the drops are useable +
3) the brake levers are easily accessible from both hoods and drops
and brake well from both positions

......then you are wrong. If your point is anything else then I don't care
very much.

~PB

DavidR said:

One second difference in reaching the finish line could be all it takes to
make the difference between winning and being an also ran. Nobody can
afford that either.

This is true, but your ability to put in that extra second will depend
in part on your body being in a sufficiently good state after 100 km to
reach that extra push, which is down to a compromise between comfort and
outright performance. Put gears and brakes on a track sprinter and
people won't be winning Le Tour on it, I suspect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your bike is not constrained by the UCI.

Quoted message said:

But there is a lot of influence.

There is, but nobody's forcing you to submit to it. I ride a recumbent
of my own free will because it's an order of magnitude more comfortable
than my old drop bar tourer. You could do the same!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Your bike is not constrained by the UCI.

Quoted message said:

But there is a lot of influence.

There is, but nobody's forcing you to submit to it.

I don't think I do.
http://bikesite.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page8.html

Quoted message said:

I ride a recumbent of my own free will because it's an order of magnitude
more comfortable than my old drop bar tourer. You could do the same!

The UCI also rules out fast small wheelers such as Moultons (reduced
spokage must give an "unfair" advantage).

The thing about the UCI is that prevents the novel from becoming
mainstream - a wannabe is going to get a bike like Lance's, not some
"commuter" bike.

DavidR said:

The thing about the UCI is that prevents the novel from becoming
mainstream - a wannabe is going to get a bike like Lance's, not some
"commuter" bike.

Well, that explains why road bike sales hugely outnumber MTB sales
then, and why there's never been any innovation in MTBs and how a
state of the art model from today is basically the same as one from
1985.
Oh, hang on...

To a certain extent the UCI keep things stalled, but drop bar
tourers don't have drop bars because that makes them look like race
bikes, but becuase they allow a lot of variation in riding position
to allow the rider to select between different degrees of comfort
and performance. And a lot of people are very happy with them,
including non-wannabes who have never raced a bike in their life.

The main thing kept stalled by conservatism is that bikes have the
bottom bracket below the rider, so necessittaing a poor aerodynamic
position with a cutaway saddle to perch on. That's more of an
issue than the shape of the handlebars.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

The thing about the UCI is that prevents the novel from becoming
mainstream - a wannabe is going to get a bike like Lance's, not some
"commuter" bike.

Well, that explains why road bike sales hugely outnumber MTB sales then,
and why there's never been any innovation in MTBs and how a state of the
art model from today is basically the same as one from 1985.
Oh, hang on...

A slight misunderstanding here. A wannabe *racer* won't get an mtb. Even
within the class of upright racers the UCI prevents small tweaks which may
or may not add up. Is there any technical reason why small wheels (the
"commuter" bike), for instance, couldn't be competitive? I can't imagine
why there would need to be a ruling over minimum wheel size if not.

Quoted message said:

The main thing kept stalled by conservatism is that bikes have the bottom
bracket below the rider, so necessittaing a poor aerodynamic position
with a cutaway saddle to perch on.

Quite. Though I can't imagine a peloton of chainsaws...

DavidR wrote:
Is there any technical reason why small wheels (the

Quoted message said:

"commuter" bike), for instance, couldn't be competitive? I can't imagine
why there would need to be a ruling over minimum wheel size if not.

I don't think there is a ruling over minimum wheel size. It is
thoughthe case that if you need a spare wheel, it is unlikely that the
neutral service crew will have non-standard sizes. So you could
potentially save a few seconds but risk losing minutes.

...d

DavidR said:

A slight misunderstanding here. A wannabe *racer* won't get an mtb. Even
within the class of upright racers the UCI prevents small tweaks which may
or may not add up. Is there any technical reason why small wheels (the
"commuter" bike), for instance, couldn't be competitive? I can't imagine
why there would need to be a ruling over minimum wheel size if not.

IME most commuter bikes have big wheels so I hadn't really caught that
reference.

Small wheels can certainly be competitive. Speed records have been set
on Moultons and they've been raced quite extensively, where the small
wheel makes them /very/ good at drafting. Probably a bit /too/ good for
the UCI... The RAAM doesn't worry too much about UCI regs and Moultons
have been raced quite successfully across America as a result.

The point of the UCI regs is to ensure that, to borrow a phrase, "it's
not about the bike". Personally I'd like there to be development
classes as well as "one design", but that's by the by. In races like
the RAAM where folk in UCI blazers aren't measuring everything in sight,
those Moultons are using drop bars to get over the 3,000 miles of the
course (and the best time ever posted was by a recumbent team last year
IIRC).

Quoted message said:

Quite. Though I can't imagine a peloton of chainsaws...

But the IHPVA can, and IIRC insist on chainwheel guards for their races.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin said:

I don't think there is a ruling over minimum wheel size.

http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules_2004/ch01.pdf

(page 53 of the pdf, numbered 51 in the document)

1.3.018

Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 70 cm maximum and 55
minimum, including the tyre. For the cyclo-cross bicycle the width of the
tyre shall not exceed 35mm and it may not incorporate any form of spike or
stud.

etc.

James Thomson

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Then the numerous happy users who post here are all above average.

Very likely. Not many people post to newsgroups.

I also see a strong cultural and historical attitude, not just in the
newsgroup but also in cycle rags. When there is discussion perhaps a lurker
can go some way towards a personal decision, rather than going with the
flow.

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps you're just unfortunate enough to ride with people who don't
know how to setup and use drop bars.

Yes, a section of average users.

Quoted message said:

Let's get to the bottom line. If your point is that it's impossible to
have the handlebar and brakes set so that.....

1) the tops and hoods are comfortable +

Yes, I see little connection between the shape of the hoods and human
anatomy. It is a compromise imposed by the presence of the drop.

Quoted message said:

2) the drops are useable +

No. This is their purpose after all.

Quoted message said:

3) the brake levers are easily accessible from both hoods and drops
and brake well from both positions
.....then you are wrong.

None of this is unconditionally impossible. You are an obvious example.
It is impossible for some. It is difficult for some. There are people that
have been riding for 30 years or more that seem to have adapted to the
equipment, rather than get or make the equipment to fit ("oh, I have just
got used to it"😉.

Quoted message said:

If your point is anything else then I don't care very much.

I am not telling *you* that *you* are doing anything wrong. I have stated
my reasons for making what I did elsewhere but he best you can come up with
"I like drops and lots of people have them therefore you are wrong".

Given the "lots of..." argument, continental leisure/touring cyclists don't
seem to have adopted drops, so yah boo.

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo. Hmm.. I can see your point.

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Then the numerous happy users who post here are all above average.

Very likely. Not many people post to newsgroups.

The only thing above average for me is that I spent more than an average
amount of time trying different settings. Anyone can do that if they
want. Many obviously-average punters post to other cycling forums, BTW,
with the same comments.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's get to the bottom line. If your point is that it's impossible
to have the handlebar and brakes set so that.....

1) the tops and hoods are comfortable +

Yes, I see little connection between the shape of the hoods and human
anatomy.

Oh dear. If I hold out my arm (as if to shake someone's hand) and relax
my hand, the fingers curl and the wrist bends a little. Now if I move my
hand like that over to my Campag Ergo lever on my bars, it fits almost
perfectly!

Quoted message said:

It is a compromise imposed by the presence of the drop.

Doesn't matter cos it's ended up good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) the drops are useable +

No. This is their purpose after all.

Quoted message said:

3) the brake levers are easily accessible from both hoods and
drops and brake well from both positions
.....then you are wrong.

None of this is unconditionally impossible.

Nor all of it. Notice the "+" signs. Your point at one stage (perhaps
made in an old thread?) seemed to be that it's not possible to have *all*
these features with the one setting. That's the "wrong" bit.

Quoted message said:

You are an obvious example.
It is impossible for some. It is difficult for some. There are people
that have been riding for 30 years or more that seem to have adapted
to the equipment, rather than get or make the equipment to fit ("oh,
I have just got used to it"😉.

Quoted message said:

If your point is anything else then I don't care very much.

I am not telling *you* that *you* are doing anything wrong. I have
stated my reasons for making what I did elsewhere but he best you can
come up with "I like drops and lots of people have them therefore you
are wrong".

I try to make more specific points than that. Defensive points, because
you have been on the attack against the product that I believe is good. I
don't claim it's good for everyone, though.

Quoted message said:

Given the "lots of..." argument, continental leisure/touring cyclists
don't seem to have adopted drops, so yah boo.

Thousands of recreational cyclists use drops in Europe.

Quoted message said:

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo.

Those brakes are not accessible from the fast positions -- where it's most
important to be able to brake quickly from in a lot of ordinary UK cycling
(as well as racing). The products may be different/better for a different
set of uses, but it's not a completely superior substitue, to say the
least.

It's not about "going with the flow". No other design does *everything*
drops do better, so the success of the drop bar continues. I'm not saying
no other handlebar is better for certain features, but nothing else
provides *all* the features together that drops have. I don't deny
different people want different features but you seemed to be saying the
drop bar was a poor compromise, full stop. There always has to be
compromise with versatile products. Really, it's a *great* compromise.

~PB

DavidR said:

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo. Hmm.. I can see your point.

Oohh those look nice.. But how do I get my gripshift changers on them?

Mmm. sorely tempted when the bike needs changing..

...d

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo.

Those brakes are not accessible from the fast positions --

Didn't you notice my "Hmm... I can see your point"?

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo.

Those brakes are not accessible from the fast positions --

Didn't you notice my "Hmm... I can see your point"?

I didn't realise what you meant. Sorry and thank you.

~PB

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The choice is not limited of course. By chance I found
http://www.koga.com/upload/collections/6891292.jpg
It is the ITM Synergo.

Those brakes are not accessible from the fast positions --

Didn't you notice my "Hmm... I can see your point"?

I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry about that.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's get to the bottom line. If your point is that it's impossible
to have the handlebar and brakes set so that.....

1) the tops and hoods are comfortable +

Yes, I see little connection between the shape of the hoods and human
anatomy.

Oh dear. If I hold out my arm (as if to shake someone's hand) and relax
my hand, the fingers curl and the wrist bends a little.

Possibly though the wrist is not relaxed on a bike.

Quoted message said:

Now if I move my
hand like that over to my Campag Ergo lever on my bars, it fits almost
perfectly!

When I went to the supermarket on Saturday I took an interest in the
trolleys. These give two basic hand positions and, unlike the bike, the
choice doesn't require a change of body position or hand loading. In other
words, the choice of hand position is solely to do with the
the hands and isn't complicated by any other factor.

One position is on the bar with knuckles parallel to the bar. The upper
arms are parallel with foreams toe-ed in. The other is to drape the fingers
over the end cheeks so that the knuckles are perpendicular to the bar. The
arms are parallel. So this would be the "slightly back from hoods"
position.

I noticed I switched between the two, mostly using the first. There was no
doubt that amongst other shoppers that the first position was
overwhelmingly the most used.

As an experiment, I also tried the "hoods" position with the palms facing
and fingers pointing down. I saw no one else doing this. The problem was
that, like the bike, it is very difficult to put the thrust into the palm
[*]. Obviously the thumbs don't have the notch for support but this is
offset by a significantly lower thrust than on a bike.

[*] though STI's are probably better than Ergos.

Also, I saw something that I consider substantiated my handlebar design
requirements - on a baby buggy.

DavidR said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 1) the tops and hoods are comfortable +

Yes, I see little connection between the shape of the hoods and
human anatomy.

Oh dear. If I hold out my arm (as if to shake someone's hand) and
relax my hand, the fingers curl and the wrist bends a little.

Possibly though the wrist is not relaxed on a bike.

Shouldn't be locked solid all the time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now if I move my
hand like that over to my Campag Ergo lever on my bars, it fits
almost perfectly!

When I went to the supermarket on Saturday I took an interest in the
trolleys. These give two basic hand positions and, unlike the bike,
the choice doesn't require a change of body position or hand loading.
In other words, the choice of hand position is solely to do with the
the hands and isn't complicated by any other factor.

One uses different hand positions when doing very different things with
very different pieces of equipment. Bike = apple, trolley = orange. For
a start, the "cheeks" bear poor resemblance to anything on a bike.

Quoted message said:

One position is on the bar with knuckles parallel to the bar. The
upper arms are parallel with foreams toe-ed in. The other is to drape
the fingers over the end cheeks so that the knuckles are
perpendicular to the bar. The arms are parallel. So this would be the
"slightly back from hoods" position.

I noticed I switched between the two, mostly using the first. There
was no doubt that amongst other shoppers that the first position was
overwhelmingly the most used.

As an experiment, I also tried the "hoods" position with the palms
facing and fingers pointing down. I saw no one else doing this.

Funnily enoughy, the same realisation occurred to me recently. If I
shopped in your supermarket then you would see one odd man out! Possibly
a transfered habit from cycling. Feels dead relaxed and it's easier to
steer round tight corners like that. A downside though, is that I graze
my knuckles against other trolleys. It's also harder to stop like that.
Brake levers on the cheeks would help! I was thinking, "I wish these
things were better designed" (I didn't know they were called "cheeks":-).

Quoted message said:

The problem was that, like the bike, it is very difficult to put the
thrust into the palm [*]. Obviously the thumbs don't have the notch
for support but this is offset by a significantly lower thrust than
on a bike.

A loaded trolley needs a lot of thrust to get going.

Quoted message said:

[*] though STI's are probably better than Ergos.

Weight goes on palms and heels of hands with Ergos on Morphes.

Not a lot of hand thrust required on a bike where just resting (/part/ of
one's weight) or sometimes actually pulling on the bars/levers is the
thing to do, and bike hoods are adequate-to-good for that. I'm not
comfortable leaning on a straight bar all the time so I very much welcome
the alternative hand position the hoods provide (as well as the
alternative arm and body positions, and alternative steering, and more
security when standing up). Variety and versatilty is what drops are all
about.

In any case, I keep up with my fellow trolley pushers :-)

~PB