handlebar height

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much higher
position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the saddle ?
What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Originally posted by David Kerber In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much
higher position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with
the saddle ? What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

=============================================

But you don't need to be aerodynamic when riding in a bunch of riders.

--

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much

higher

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the

saddle ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

It should also be noted that *racers* are usually in their 20-30s, have 5-7%
body fat and ride like 20,000 miles per year. For most everyone else,
"raising" their handlebars would arguably be more beneficial to help
alleviate alot of back and neck pains....

Quoted message said:

It should also be noted that *racers* are usually in their 20-30s, have

5-7%

Quoted message said:

body fat and ride like 20,000 miles per year. For most everyone else,
"raising" their handlebars would arguably be more beneficial to help
alleviate alot of back and neck pains....

My racing days are far behind me, and, at 48, I'm not terribly close to
being in my 20s-30s either. I'm also not terribly flexible (I can't come
close to touching my toes and *never* do stretching exercises). But, on a
60cm frame, my bars are about 2.5 inches below the seat, and that's
considerably more comfortable for me than a higher bar. My point? That a
higher bar does *not* automatically, mean more comfort.

Why might a lower bar make for a more-comfortable ride? In my case, it's
because it takes pressure off my tail end and distributes it forward, to may
arms. Obviously, there's a balance, and that balance may be different for
different people. But for me, I can ride 100 miles *very* comfortably, with
no saddle pain, providing the bars are a reasonable distance below the
saddle. Raise the bars and I'm fine on a shorter ride, but get saddle-sore
on longer expeditions.

Keep in mind that my lack of flexibility is something of a joke around the
shop, yet I can ride forever comfortably on a bike with the bars a moderate
distance below the bars. Obviously your mileage may vary, but don't assume
that everyone but 20-30 year old racers would benefit from a higher
handlebar.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

First,
"bfd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much

higher

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the

saddle ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

It should also be noted that *racers* are usually in their 20-30s, have

5-7%

Quoted message said:

body fat and ride like 20,000 miles per year. For most everyone else,
"raising" their handlebars would arguably be more beneficial to help
alleviate alot of back and neck pains....

A more level torso, less frontal area, better aerodynamics and a sore
back! LOL

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Quoted message said:

But you don't need to be aerodynamic when riding in a bunch of riders.

If you never take a turn at the front why should the others let you draft them?
I'd try to drop someone like that in a heartbeat -- most cyclists would.

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by David Kerber In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much
higher position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with
the saddle ? What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

=============================================

But you don't need to be aerodynamic when riding in a bunch of riders.

If you're in the front, or trying to break away, you do...

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much

higher

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the

saddle ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

I assume you mean for racing. If that's what you mean, it's simply that
lower bars allow the rider to get a bit more aerodynamic, and thus go a
bit faster.

It should also be noted that *racers* are usually in their 20-30s, have 5-7%
body fat and ride like 20,000 miles per year. For most everyone else,
"raising" their handlebars would arguably be more beneficial to help
alleviate alot of back and neck pains....

Yep. He didn't ask what the downsides of low bars was; just why they
lowered them.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

TopCounsel said:

If you never take a turn at the front why should the others let you draft
them?

Because they're much stronger than you, or less tired, or don't have
a race the next day and you do.

Quoted message said:

I'd try to drop someone like that in a heartbeat -- most cyclists would.

That's not very neighborly. There are plenty of reasons to sit in.
I'll offer my wheel to a tired or weaker rider any time. If someone
on the front's looking tired, I invite them to sit in for a while
and take a rest. If the guy in front of me's losing the wheel in
front of him, I'll offer to push him back up to close the gap. When
I'm tired, I expect to get the same treatment. Karma's a good thing.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Quoted message said:

A more level torso, less frontal area, better aerodynamics and a sore
back! LOL

Sitting more upright does not always result in a sore back; indeed, the
opposite is often the case. When you're sitting straight up, all of your
weight is going through your spine. When you lean over, you're shifting
some of that weight to your arms & shoulders.

If you go to the extreme yes, you'll end up with a sore back (and other
things). The trick is to accomplish a position in which you feel completely
relaxed on the bike, and this will be different for different people.

For what it's worth, aerodynamics is something we don't even consider for
fitting people to bikes (unless it's a tri-bike or they request that we make
them as "aero" as possible). It's all about comfort & being relaxed. And
that doesn't mean sitting straight up.

The problem here is that "racing" bikes have gotten a bad rap over the
years, because they usually come off the showroom floor with extremely long
& low stems that are rarely appropriate for the person who buys the bike.
This has spawned a reactionary product- the so-called "comfort" bike- which,
off the showroom floor, comes stock with a higher and shorter stem, along
with a few other items, such as wider tires, that a good bike shop should
have been adapting (where applicable to the customer) all along.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A more level torso, less frontal area, better aerodynamics and a sore
back! LOL

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

n crowley said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much higher
position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the saddle ?
What does a rider gain from this ?

You may gain nothing.

In theory, you may be a little more aerodynamic. If you're going fast
enough (or trying to) that may help a little. Otherwise, I don't think
it's worth much.

As Grant Peterson of Rivendell bikes (among others) have pointed out,
you should be comfortable both on the tops and on the drops (assuming
you have drop bars, that is.) Many riders seem to put their bars low
enough that they're comfortable only on the tops.

There's a little on this at
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_raisestem.html

and http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

plus, no doubt, other places on the Rivendell site.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

"n crowley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much

higher

Quoted message said:

position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the saddle

?

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

A sore neck and a sore back.

Seriously, the handlebars are lower mainly as a result of the change to
threadless headsets. On many bikes, the manufacturer will usually cut the
fork to the minimum possible length, then use a stem with almost no rise, so
the handlebars are abnormally low. Unless you're a racer, you probably won't
appreciate the low handlebars.

You can fix this with a stem riser and/or and adjustable stem. The coolest
device to fix this is the SpeedLifter, see
http://www.speedlifter.com/speedlifter_english/englisch_3.html, but I don't
think that it is sold in the U.S. yet.

See http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec, click on "Why Threaded Headsets, with
Quill Stems, are preferable to Threadless Headsets" for some solutions.

I did notice that on many of the higher end bicycles, the fork is not cut to
the minimum length, and they have spacers inserted between the headset and
the stem. The bike shop can cut the fork down if the buyer so desires. But
clearly a shop selling mid-range to lower end models doesn't want to bother
with this; they can sell an extender if the customer wants a traditional
riding position.

It's not a big deal. For $20-80 you can gain back the functionality of a
threaded headset.

Steve
http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"n crowley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is the explanation for the lowering of handlebars from the much

higher

Quoted message said:

position of the 50's and 60's when they were almost level with the

saddle

Quoted message said:

?

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

A sore neck and a sore back.

Seriously, the handlebars are lower mainly as a result of the change to
threadless headsets. On many bikes, the manufacturer will usually cut the
fork to the minimum possible length, then use a stem with almost no rise,

so

Quoted message said:

the handlebars are abnormally low. Unless you're a racer, you probably

won't

Quoted message said:

appreciate the low handlebars.

You can fix this with a stem riser and/or and adjustable stem. The coolest
device to fix this is the SpeedLifter, see
http://www.speedlifter.com/speedlifter_english/englisch_3.html, but I

don't

Quoted message said:

think that it is sold in the U.S. yet.

See http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec, click on "Why Threaded Headsets, with
Quill Stems, are preferable to Threadless Headsets" for some solutions.

I did notice that on many of the higher end bicycles, the fork is not cut

to

Quoted message said:

the minimum length, and they have spacers inserted between the headset and
the stem. The bike shop can cut the fork down if the buyer so desires. But
clearly a shop selling mid-range to lower end models doesn't want to

bother

Quoted message said:

with this; they can sell an extender if the customer wants a traditional
riding position.

It's not a big deal. For $20-80 you can gain back the functionality of a
threaded headset.

I going to disagree with the above in part. The main reason for the current
trend of lower handlebars is, as others have stated, that pro racer use this
position of low handlebars/high saddle mainly for aerodynamic purposes. The
bicycle industry, which is influenced mainly by large companies' product
managers and *designers*, Grant Petersen excluded, buy into the "race on
Sunday, sell on Monday" motto. Thus, today's bikes are all racing-based,
e.g., "I wanna be like Lance".

The fact that threadless headsets is prevalent is due in part to its popular
and standardization in mt bikes, and results in lower costs to bicycle mfrs,
as the parts and size have evolved into the same for both road and mt bikes,
mainly mfrs now only need to buy 1 and 1/8" threadless forks and stems and
ahead-style headsets.

As stated, spacers and threadless stems with risers like Salsa SUL do raise
the bars and help get the bars higher for those who need it.

Steven M. Scharf said:

Quoted message said:

What does a rider gain from this ?

A sore neck and a sore back.

When my bars were too low, I had a sore neck and very sore arms and
hands and shoulders.

Quoted message said:

Seriously, the handlebars are lower mainly as a result of the change to
threadless headsets.

Really? Most bikes I see with threaded headsets are also too low,
even after you adjust the stem as high as is safe.

Quoted message said:

On many bikes, the manufacturer will usually cut the
fork to the minimum possible length, then use a stem with almost no rise, so
the handlebars are abnormally low.

Here's the problem with that: on many threaded bikes, the maximum
height is no higher than the maximum height of the aforementioned
threadless bikes after flipping the stem.

Quoted message said:

Unless you're a racer, you probably won't
appreciate the low handlebars.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

You can fix this with a stem riser and/or and adjustable stem. The coolest
device to fix this is the SpeedLifter, see
http://www.speedlifter.com/speedlifter_english/englisch_3.html, but I don't
think that it is sold in the U.S. yet.

Or, you could just get a stem with some rise to it, and reduce the
risk to your crotch in an unlikely endo. My road bike's stem is
130mm with 40 degree rise, looks pretty, functions perfectly, was
cheap, and puts my bars at a comfortable height, all on a frame that
is (due to miseducation when I bought it) too small, too gimmicky,
and way, way too low at the top of the head tube. My stem is also
great for inciting riots among retrogrouches and racer
wannabes...yet somehow, it manages to keep my handlebar in a
comfortable position.

Quoted message said:

See http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec, click on "Why Threaded Headsets, with

Seems very credible, they even report the same old mythology about
steel vs. aluminum.

Quoted message said:

It's not a big deal. For $20-80 you can gain back the functionality of a
threaded headset.

It certainly isn't; threadless is easy enough to adjust (google
groups for past messages from me, there's loads of ways to adjust
it), and the stem never seizes to the steerer, either.

Come off it. Threadless and threaded are both fine systems, given
proper education on how to use them.
--
Rick Onanian

bfd said:

The fact that threadless headsets is prevalent is due in part to its popular
and standardization in mt bikes, and results in lower costs to bicycle mfrs,
as the parts and size have evolved into the same for both road and mt bikes,
mainly mfrs now only need to buy 1 and 1/8" threadless forks and stems and
ahead-style headsets.

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Quoted message said:

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.

There is no place in this newsgroup for factual information, particularly
when it flies in the face of those who think there's a conspiracy (of which
threadless headsets, they feel, are a part) to put cyclists noses into the
gravel with low handlebars.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bfd said:

The fact that threadless headsets is prevalent is due in part to its

popular

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and standardization in mt bikes, and results in lower costs to bicycle

mfrs,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as the parts and size have evolved into the same for both road and mt

bikes,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mainly mfrs now only need to buy 1 and 1/8" threadless forks and stems

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ahead-style headsets.

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you never take a turn at the front why should the others let you draft
them?

Because they're much stronger than you, or less tired, or don't have
a race the next day and you do.

Quoted message said:

I'd try to drop someone like that in a heartbeat -- most cyclists would.

That's not very neighborly. There are plenty of reasons to sit in.
I'll offer my wheel to a tired or weaker rider any time. If someone
on the front's looking tired, I invite them to sit in for a while
and take a rest. If the guy in front of me's losing the wheel in
front of him, I'll offer to push him back up to close the gap. When
I'm tired, I expect to get the same treatment. Karma's a good thing.

Admittedly, these sentiments have their place. But my point was that EVERYONE
should consider their aerodynamics in anticipation of taking a turn at the
front, or -- God forbid -- riding alone!

Terry Morse said:

bfd said:

The fact that threadless headsets is prevalent is due in part to its popular
and standardization in mt bikes, and results in lower costs to bicycle mfrs,
as the parts and size have evolved into the same for both road and mt bikes,
mainly mfrs now only need to buy 1 and 1/8" threadless forks and stems and
ahead-style headsets.

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

In almost 50 years of bicycle riding I never had a problem with the
headset other than having to tighten it up now and then. No breaks or
anything. AND infinite adjustability, with a simple wrench.

Sorry, but I like threaded headsets. They are also attractive and slim
vs BUTT UGLY

Other than that, I guess we agree.
Regards,
Bernie
Regards, Bernie

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The main reason for threadless headsets is that they are better than
what came before. Lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable.

There is no place in this newsgroup for factual information, particularly
when it flies in the face of those who think there's a conspiracy (of

which

Quoted message said:

threadless headsets, they feel, are a part) to put cyclists noses into the
gravel with low handlebars.

The original poster in this thread asked what a rider gained from the lower
handlebar height.

It's not a conspiracy to put cyclists noses into the gravel; that is simply
an undesirable side-effect. The reason that the manufacturers went to the
threadless headsets is because it reduces manufacturing cost. Afterward,
they came up with the "lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable,"
rationalizations for the change, and they emphasize these characteristics. I
'm sure that as a bike shop owner you've seen broken threaded headsets, but
I don't believe that durability, stiffness, and strongness, have been big
problems for headsets, especially on road bikes.

Your shop is especially affected, since you sell only Trek's lines of
bicycles, and Trek has been very aggressive in propagating the biggest three
cost reductions across their lines (aluminum frames, compact geometry, and
threadless headsets). Simply writing off the customers that don't find a
Trek product that fits their needs is probably a profitable approach, since
I would guess that shops that are tied to a single manufacturer get special
pricing that makes up for lost sales from customers that don't find the
product that they want. But you're certainly aware that you're sending a lot
of customers, who would rather patronize your store, a few miles north on
Foothill Expressway to a shop that carries fourteen different makes
(including Trek).