irishpacker said:
I made the adjustments you guys suggested and yes it did make the underhang alot easier to use. I alot moved the brake levers towards me about an inch to compensate.
BUT
This now means that when I use the underhang, my knees are hitting my chest.
and
even when I'm resting hands on top, it is noticeably sore on my lower back - which was the reason I started adjusting the handlebars in the first place. Maybe I just have to get used to it!
I went out for a quick 30k to check how it felt. It felt very good on steep ascents and the underhang was a joy on the decent! but it was "uncomfortable", even painful, on my lower back. bear in mine I have well above average flexibility.
I was also checking my shadow on the road as it was evening, and i noticed my back was only bent at my lower back, and straight from there to my neck. I tried to get the "arch" that they say you should have when cycling, but that means having to pull my arms back from onto of the brakes.
Also
I'm right in saying your arms are meant to have a kink in them when resting ontop of the bars? well mine are constantly dead straight.
I'm still confused! I mean this is meant to be my frame size?!? or at least a cm or 2 under!
I shall take your advice and visit the bike shop, they may be patronising bike nerds, but they may be able to help!
Thanks again lads
Okay, so I'm eyeballing the pic of your bike, and using my keen sense of proportion (kidding!), I reckon that the distance
between the top of the saddle (in a line that goes along the seat tube) to the center of the crank is something like
30" ...
or, more! Is that right?
I can't discern the length of the crank arms at this distance ... 170mm?
Anyway,
try reducing the distance between the center of the crank arm & the top of your saddle (again, when measured along the seat tube) to about
29" AND moving the seat back as far as it can go if it isn't already
--you may eventually want a seatpost with more setback -- something like an Easton EA50 (i.e., their economy version) which has about a 1/4" more setback than most.
See how lowering the saddle affects your position on the bike!
Also, in addition to the hi-rise, normally MTB-type stem(s):
AND, this stubby stem will elevate & extend the bars less.
While MTB & ROAD handlebars theoretically have different diameter center sections, a MTB stem can often accommodate a ROAD handlebar without too much effort (if any) ... however, "tweaking" the clamp may be necessary by removing VERY SMALL amount from the edge of the stem-proper. My observation is that the face plate of most MTB stems fits perfectly against most ROAD handlebars ... that will be a clue that minimal (if any) effort is required to make the stem viable. Of course, OS (31.8) bars are another issue ...
You can also consider a stem-rise extension (available for both 1" & 1 1/8" steerers) ... again, I think they are rarely seen on ROAD bikes, but this is more a matter of cosmetics/aesthetics, I think.
The stem-riser extension is probably a last resort because of the amount of additional rise (about 3") ... but, I suppose that once you get the size/length, you can trim it ... or, not!?!
Figure only about £10 for any of these options.
BTW. At some point, you should compare the measurements of your friend's bike and yours ... I'm guessing the distance between his/her saddle's height & the center of the crank is much less than on your bike.
BTW2. At
178cm, you are closer to
5'8" (presumably, bare foot) ... and, if
that is correct, then seriously consider re-setting the distance between the top-of-the-saddle & the center-of-the-crank to
between 27.50 & 27.75 inches (the distance is not quite as arbitrary sounding as I have probably made it seem) ... the actual distance depends on the length of your crankarms/etc. (where, "etc." means you don't want me to go into it, right now).