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).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Kerber
[B]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 ?

"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:LeCfc-
[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 geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

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 bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

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
rivendellbicycles.comrr raisestem.htmlOpen ↗

and
rivendellbicycles.comrr comfposition.htmlOpen ↗

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

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

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
chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:28388-407F058C-52@storefull-
3172.bay.webtv.net...

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 geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

"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
speedlifter.comenglisch 3.hOpen ↗
tml, but I don't think that it is sold in the U.S. yet.

See nordicgroup.usbikerecOpen ↗, 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 nordicgroup.usbikerecOpen ↗

"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 speedlifter.comenglisOpen ↗
ch_3.html, but I

don't

Quoted message said:

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

See nordicgroup.usbikerecOpen ↗, 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 speedlifter.comenglOpen ↗
isch_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 nordicgroup.usbikerecOpen ↗, 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 bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

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
chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tmorse-
[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 bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

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 bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

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).

"Rick Onanian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:37 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"

Quoted message said:

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

I don't see this. The stems usually have quite a bit of rise
to them to begin with, even though the adjustment range is
limited. The stems on threadless headset equipped bicycles
usually have very little rise, though you can now buy stems
with adjustable rise. Part of the problem now, is the
tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them.

The bottom line is that you can add components to get the
handlebars to the proper height, but it's an extra expense
unless you get the shop to include the extender for free at
the time of purchase.

Quoted message said:

Or, you could just get a stem with some rise to it, and
reduce the risk to

your crotch in an unlikely endo.

Agreed, but why do most road bikes come with stems that have
almost no rise? I think that it's because the rise was
supposed to be set by cutting the steerer tube to the
desired length and filling the space in-between with
spacers. Indeed this is what you'll often see on the higher-
end bikes with threadless headsets. It's fine. It lets the
bike shop set the height and the only part needed is some
inexpensive spacers. It doesn't look very attractive, but
it's functional.

A stem with rise is certainly an option, but the objection
is that with a threaded headset the stems usually had
sufficient rise without the need for a change, if the bike
were properly fitted. Again, part of the problem now, is the
tendency to sell people bikes that are too small for them,
which requires more rise in the stem.

See:
rivendellbicycles.combikes framesize.htmlOpen ↗
which states:

"In General people ride bikes that are too small. <snip>
Sore neck, sore lower back, sore hand---and almost without
exceptions it's caused by a frame that's too small and
doesn't let them raise the bars high enough to cure these
ills. Understandably, they're feeling foolish and bummed
out. Handlebars too low cause 90 percent of the discomfort
people suffer. And buying a frame too small guarantees that
the bars will be too low."

Of course Grant Peterson must be wrong, because he sells a
lot less bicycles than Trek!

Quoted message said:

Come off it. Threadless and threaded are both fine
systems, given proper

education on how to use them.

They are. With a device like the SpeedLifter, combined
with a new stem (or adjustable stem), I'd say that
threadless is actually better. The question is why we now
have to spend $20-80 extra to achieve proper fit (or live
with improper fit).