"Flat Bar" Road Bikes: What's The Point?

[W K]

"Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 04:00:18 -0400, W K wrote:
>
> >> Why would you say that? I think you either aren't fitted properly, or simply haven't learned
> >> how to use brakes on drop bars.
> >
> > So you have to learn how to use them properly. Isn't that an indication of it being more
> > difficult?
>
> No. Peeing in the toilet isn't "more difficult" but you need to learn how to do that, too.

What a strange and unpleasant parallel, but if you must ... its easier to **** anywhere than to just
do it in a toilet. Just go to the men's toilet in a bar and witness the effects of missing.

Almost everyone can get to grips with the brakes on flat bars straight away. You seem to be making a
parallel between stinky carpets and people's experiences that the brakes on drop bars can be tricky.

Braking from the hoods is not as convenient or powerful as on flats, from the hoods - well - if I am
likely to need to break I like to have an upright position, for vision, so more people can see me,
and so I've got my "air brake" on.

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

Trek-<< Again, for those not paying attention, I am not insisting anything, just making suggestions
and personal recommendations.

The terms 'rant' and such sure seem to me that you are insisting they try something they may not
want..I am 'paying attention', perhaps you need to re-read your first two posts...

Start with 'What's the point"

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Jonathan V.D. S]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht news:[email protected]...
> When reviewing trends, remember most people are just average! This is just
a
> currently trendy bike format but with some sensible virtues.

There are many older bikes (from the 80s) that are very much like fitness bikes: racing frames with
a normal handlebar (without drops) on them. Their handlebars or not as flat as those on a
mountainbike, but curve somewhat (or a complete 90 degrees) towards the rider. I see a lot of these
in Amsterdam, from brands like Peugeot. So I don't think it is really a new trend.

But not all fitness bikes have a flat handlebar; Cannondale produces a bike with a different
geometry (more upright), but the handlebar has drops. A magazine reviewed on of these 'sport bikes'
along with fitness bikes, so I think they should fit in the same category. They also have some
suspension.

Jonathan.

 

[Trent Gregory H]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> > Look at a Trek catalog, the touring bike has the bars 4+ inches below the seat, no wonder people
> > "know" drops are uncomfortable, now look at the fitness bikes, bars near seat level.
>
> Thankfully not even close to being true in real life. The catalog shots show a seat way up in the
> air (nearly all do) for reasons I don't understand.

I think it's because bike manufacturers, by and large, have forgotten how to market bikes to anybody
but racers and racer wannabees on the one hand, and bike trail toodlers on the other. Touring and
utility / commuting riders--who make up a large actual and potential market--barely figure on the
radar screen.

Note that I said "market"--there are still good mass-produced touring bikes out there, but I don't
think Trek, C'dale, Fuji et. al know how to sell them.

Trent

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I think it's because bike manufacturers, by and large, have forgotten how to market bikes to
> anybody but racers and racer wannabees on the one hand, and bike trail toodlers on the other.

Absolutely agree 100%. They have a tough time with who actually buys and uses their product, and get
into this "racers are cool" thing and set up bikes the way a racer would (for catalog shots). The
people who actually design the bikes have surprisingly little input in the marketing of the
product... and I've found it's much easier to give input (and see results) with the design folk than
the marketing departments. For example, when threadless stems first made it to road bikes, the forks
were initially cut fairly short. Didn't take long before a bunch of "input" (they might see it as
"whining from the shops") convinced them to leave 4cm of spacers under the stems. Someone wants it
lower, they can have it cut down or flip the stem etc.

When I get product shots from TREK (for use in our own flyers, ads & our website), they invariably
show the seats way up high relative to the bars. And I invariably use PhotoPaint (similar to
Photoshop) to lower them. Seriously. I've gotten really good at hacking seatposts down to size!

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

 

[Russell Yim]

>The terms 'rant' and such sure seem to me that you are insisting they try something they may
>not want..

It's called hyperbole, which I guess didn't translate well in print since I didn't put an emoticon
after it. Sorry.

>I am 'paying attention', perhaps you need to re-read your first two posts... Start with 'What's
>the point"

More exaggeration on my part, to start some dialog on the subject.

FWIW, we sold a couple of flat-bar road bikes today.. the store was so busy, I didn't even bother to
"rant" about the benefits of a drop-bar...I just let 'em buy. Hope they realize those low
spoke-count wheels are not for curb jumping!

 

[Squid-In-Traini]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I ride my commuter road bike in the drops 50% of the time for
> aerodynamics.
> > Granted, I ride no more than a mile on each leg of my trips, so I don't
> get
> > fatigued. Anything over 10 miles is really hard on me though.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Why are aerodynamics important doing "commutes" of one
mile
> or less? I wouldn't think it would matter much whether you were riding an upright 3-speed or
> Lance's time trial bike for such trips.

Getting to class really... Saving a minute or two here or there.

I live at the bottom of a long, gentle hill. Going through campus upright wouldn't be as fun as it
would b in the drops.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Squid-In-Traini]

"Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 18:25:02 -0400, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
> >> > Drop bars can stoppie easily but that's b/c your CoG is so much farther forward.
> >>
> >> You can achieve exactly the same riding position with either type of bar. What can you possibly
> >> be thinking of?
> >
> > Not with the same frame/wheel geometry and same stem. To reach the brakes on a drop bar (from
> > the top), you have to reach 10 cm further. Even further if you'er in the drops.
>
>
> I cannot imagine what kind of setup you have if you think you need to reach five inches farther to
> get to the brakes with drops than MTB. When I ride, I generally have my hands on the brake hoods,
> with my fingers wrapped over the top of the brake lever. I can lock both brakes with fingertip
> pressure on top of the brake lever. Where'd the 5 extra inches come from?

You can lock the front with fingertip pressure?!?! Good God, Superman! How you keep from going
over the bars?

I've produced these pictures here: http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes2.jpg
http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes1.jpg

I ride a Giant Kronos and a Giant XTC2. I figured the TCR would be close in geometry, except that
it's compact.

I didn't do any sizing corrections because it seems to me that both bikes have similar
BB-top-of-seattube lengths.

The TCR quite obviously has a much farther and lower reach (seems like 5 inches is about right) than
the XTC does.

Even if you put the stems center-to-center on top of each other, the TCR has a farther forward and
lower position. The stems appear to be of similar size.

> > Road bars tend to be lower than MTB bars, not to mention that a fewer percentage of MTB riders
> > run their stems upside down.
>
> Not that I've ever seen. Generally, I see MTB bars at least as low as drop bars, and seldom as
> high, except on hybrids and comfort bikes.

So according to my pictures, stock bicycles aren't how you see most MTB bars?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Trent Gregory H]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
> You can lock the front with fingertip pressure?!?! Good God, Superman! How you keep from going
> over the bars?
>

It's no more difficult to lock properly set up brakes on a drop-bar bike than on a flat-bar bike.
Really. It doesn't require a he-man grip, just a proper setup

> I've produced these pictures here: http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes2.jpg
> http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes1.jpg
>
> I ride a Giant Kronos and a Giant XTC2. I figured the TCR would be close in geometry, except that
> it's compact.
>
> I didn't do any sizing corrections because it seems to me that both bikes have similar
> BB-top-of-seattube lengths.
>
> The TCR quite obviously has a much farther and lower reach (seems like 5 inches is about right)
> than the XTC does.
>

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the TCR stem is longer and set at a lower angle than the
other bike's, which has the effect of increasing reach. It also looks like the head tube on the TCR
is somewhat steeper, which also increases the reach. When you consider that the normal riding
position on the TCR in any situation that might involve braking would put the brake levers at the
rider's fingertips, it's a wash.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If a rider can't readily and comfortably reach the
brakes in a normal riding position, regardless of whether s/he's on a flat or drop-bar bike, the
bike isn't properly set up for that rider. To paraphrase Lance, again, it's not about the bars.

Trent

 

[Remove The Poli]

I agree that LARD is the best reason to avoid drop bars. I know that as I lost some of my jiggly,
bouncing revolting programmer desk jockey/drone LARD I've been able for the first time in 20
years to ride in the drops without SQUEEZING my innards between my spine and my full padding of
LARD on my BELLY.

I also found I could go a little faster in the drops as I was getting faster with less LARD and the
slight aerofynamic improvement of drops over hoods made more of a difference at 18-19 than it does
and 12-14 mph. I also feel a lot better with less LARD on me.

However, I do agree that braking is harder, hoods' postion is weak and althoughbraking from the
drops on a maniacally fast downhill gets the weight lower; further back and is almost ideal- the
transition from hoods to drops when going 35-40 is pretty hair raising.

 

[Jonathan V.D. S]

"trent gregory hill" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 May 2003, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > > Look at a Trek catalog, the touring bike has the bars 4+ inches below the seat, no wonder
> > > people "know" drops are uncomfortable, now look at the fitness bikes, bars near seat level.
> >
> > Thankfully not even close to being true in real life. The catalog shots show a seat way up in
> > the air (nearly all do) for reasons I don't understand.
>
> I think it's because bike manufacturers, by and large, have forgotten how to market bikes to
> anybody but racers and racer wannabees on the one hand, and bike trail toodlers on the other.
> Touring and utility / commuting riders--who make up a large actual and potential market--barely
> figure on the radar screen.

Trekking bikes - for commuting, holidays, and long distances - have become quite popular in Germany,
perhaps replacing regular commuting bikes. The typical randonneur of the 80s would have drops, but
the modern ones don't. Flat, with or without bar-ends and the ugly multiposition handlebar are much
more popular.

>
> Note that I said "market"--there are still good mass-produced touring bikes out there, but I don't
> think Trek, C'dale, Fuji et. al know how to sell them.
>
> Trent

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

Trekkrussel-<< It's called hyperbole, which I guess didn't translate well in print since I
didn't put an emoticon after it >><BR><BR> << More exaggeration on my part, to start some dialog
on the subject.

Then perhaps an explanation first instead of saying somebody wasn't 'paying attention'...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Duke Robillard]

W K wrote:
> "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 18 May 2003 04:00:18 -0400, W K wrote:
>>
>>>>Why would you say that? I think you either aren't fitted properly, or simply haven't learned how
>>>>to use brakes on drop bars.
>>>
>>>So you have to learn how to use them properly. Isn't that an indication of it being more
>>>difficult?
>>
>>No. Peeing in the toilet isn't "more difficult" but you need to learn how to do that, too.

I ride my cyclocross bike (drop bars and Shimano 105 brake/shifter controls) on the same trails as
my mountain bikes (flat & riser bars and MTB style levers). It's a lot harder to brake on the
cyclocross bike, and the braking force I get with my hands on the hoods is no where near as good as
in the drops.

That's what makes it fun. You need to think ahead to get your hands in the right place, and
brake earlier and so on. On the mountain bike, you're always ready to brake with any force you need.

Maybe it's different on the road, but I don't see why it would be.

Duke

 

[Scott Goldsmith]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<GuGxa.2469

> > Take a Lemond road bike, put a short reach Technomic deluxe stem on it, with the bars at seat
> > level. Then send the customer out on ride with a fast down hill. Then try the same on a fitness
> > bike. Which bike feels more secure ? You could get a broader range of fit on a PX-10 than a
> > 5900, and fit larger tires for city riding or Paris Roubaix, ain't progress great ?
>
> I remain baffled by those who feel you cannot get much height adjustment out of a bike with a
> threadless fork. The reality is that, if you really want to put a handlebar way up in the air on a
> 5900, you can. If the current stock of stems, many with steep upward angles, doesn't do the
> trick... you can always install an extension piece that will kick the bars up as high as a
> Technomic stem, and you can certainly get it set up with as short a forward reach.

Adding an extenstion sort of defeats the purpose of threadless, lighter weight & stiffness, no ?

Upward angle ( 1 & 2 o'clock) stems are just ugly to me.

>
> Tires are a different story... modern road bikes generally won't allow for wider than a 28c tire
> (and some won't even go that high). So I suppose an old PX-10 with Del Mondo tubulars would, in
> fact, have a softer ride. Fortunately, TREK isn't marketing a 5900 for "city riding."

On our lovely frost heaved roads, Avocet 32 or 27 slicks allow you to go faster than 23s and with a
lot more comfort. A PX-10, a top production race bike of it's era, is a more flexible design than a
5900/5200, from a fit and suitablity to different road surfaces and rider weight. And can still
maintain its good looks while doing it.

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

Scott Goldsmith

 

[Squid-In-Traini]

"trent gregory hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 May 2003, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> >
> > You can lock the front with fingertip pressure?!?! Good God, Superman!
How
> > you keep from going over the bars?
> >
>
> It's no more difficult to lock properly set up brakes on a drop-bar bike than on a flat-bar bike.
> Really. It doesn't require a he-man grip, just a proper setup

If you can lock the front (skidding the front tire out) on a road bike in dry conditions on level
pavement, I would love to see that.

> > I've produced these pictures here: http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes2.jpg
> > http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/****/2bikes1.jpg
> >
> > I ride a Giant Kronos and a Giant XTC2. I figured the TCR would be
close in
> > geometry, except that it's compact.
> >
> > I didn't do any sizing corrections because it seems to me that both
bikes
> > have similar BB-top-of-seattube lengths.
> >
> > The TCR quite obviously has a much farther and lower reach (seems like 5 inches is about right)
> > than the XTC does.
> >
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the TCR stem is longer and set at a lower angle than
> the other bike's, which has the effect of increasing reach. It also looks like the head tube on
> the TCR is somewhat steeper, which also increases the reach. When you consider that the normal
> riding position on the TCR in any situation that might involve braking would put the brake levers
> at the rider's fingertips, it's a wash.
>
> I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If a rider can't readily and comfortably reach the
> brakes in a normal riding position, regardless of whether s/he's on a flat or drop-bar bike, the
> bike isn't properly set up for that rider. To paraphrase Lance, again, it's not about the bars.

But people who aren't frequent cyclists are more comfortable on flat bars. The issue isn't fit, it's
preference.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Trent Gregory H]

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
> "trent gregory hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > The TCR quite obviously has a much farther and lower reach (seems like 5 inches is about
> > > right) than the XTC does.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the TCR stem is longer and set at a lower angle than
> > the other bike's, which has the effect of increasing reach. It also looks like the head tube on
> > the TCR is somewhat steeper, which also increases the reach. When you consider that the normal
> > riding position on the TCR in any situation that might involve braking would put the brake
> > levers at the rider's fingertips, it's a wash.
> >
> > I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If a rider can't readily and comfortably reach the
> > brakes in a normal riding position, regardless of whether s/he's on a flat or drop-bar bike, the
> > bike isn't properly set up for that rider. To paraphrase Lance, again, it's not about the bars.
>
> But people who aren't frequent cyclists are more comfortable on flat bars. The issue isn't fit,
> it's preference.
>

Not to beat a dead horse, but I beg to differ. IIRC, the OP here claimed or suggested that
flat-barred road bikes were all marketing hype. Several people then claimed that not only were they
not hype, they were superior to standard drop bars in several aspects, ease of braking being among
them. You agreed, and posted an illustration that purported to demonstrate that road bars add 5" to
the reach to the brake levers. I then pointed out that if a rider can't reach the controls on a
bike *in their normal riding position*, the bike's too big for them, and what the photos show is a
fit problem.

Put another way: Your original contention and photos only make sense if you assume that the normal
riding position on a bike with drop bars is "on the flats," i.e. on the horizontal part of the bar
perpendicular to the axis of the stem. If a road bike has been properly sized and fitted to a rider,
s/he can spend most of the time riding with his or her hands on top of the brake hoods or in the
hooked part of the bars, with the controls for the bike at fingertip access.

That's the way a bike with drop bars *should* fit. Whether you can acheive that fit with an off-peg
"road" bike is an open question. Mike J. seems to do a good job of it, and since you see a ton of
cyclists around here (Seattle), some other folks are doing it. Whether a bike shop staffed with
racerboys and extreme MTB'ers can or will properly fit customers to their bikes is another question
entirely. I suspect that has as much to do with inexperienced riders' preference for flat bars as
anything else.

FWIW, I think that flat bars make plenty of sense for some riders in some circumstances. If somebody
likes 'em, fine. I find them brutally uncomfotable, bar ends or no, on rides of greater than ten
miles. But bar preferences are only slightly less personal than saddle preferences.

Trent

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Adding an extenstion sort of defeats the purpose of threadless, lighter weight & stiffness, no ?
>
> Upward angle ( 1 & 2 o'clock) stems are just ugly to me.

The extensions are actually fairly light (being made of aluminum) and the diameter large enough that
stiffness isn't a problem. Ugliness is another issue, but some are beginning to look a bit nicer.

> On our lovely frost heaved roads, Avocet 32 or 27 slicks allow you to go
faster
> than 23s and with a lot more comfort. A PX-10, a top production race bike of it's era, is a more
> flexible design than a 5900/5200, from a fit and suitablity to different road surfaces and rider
> weight. And can still
maintain
> its good looks while doing it.

Calling a Peugeot PX-10 a "top production race bike of its era"... them's fightin' words! Anybody
worth his/her salt knows that a Gitane Tour de France trumped a PX-10 any day of the week. At least
that's what I thought at the time. The "common" folk at the bike rack had their white PX-10s with
their curly-q Nervex lugs, while I chose the alternative route, spending $36 hard-earned dollars
more for a Gitane. Slightly-shorter wheelbase, bit more upright angles, and definitely a racier
feel to it.

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