First road bike: braking?

Rick Onanian wrote:

Test riding the road bike that I own now, downhill on a city
street at probably 30 or 35 mph. The bike has 105 levers,
calipers, and pads, and Jagwire cables and housings.

My hands were in the drops.

Hands-in-drops positions your body weight forward over the front
wheel, and makes it difficult to shift your weight back to prevent a
nose wheelie while getting strong braking.

The rear tire was unweighted, skidded, then in the air an inch
or two before I was able to conciously moderate my braking
force to get the rear tire back on the ground and skidding.

I had more brake power than I could possibly have used; the
only way to use more brake power would be with additional
weight on the rear

--For instance with the superior body positioning afforded by flat
bars at saddle level.

The verdict: 105 brakes, 210 pound rider, 30 mph, downhill,
dry pavement, more than sufficient power from brakes.

Just because you can nose wheelie when you are hunched down in the
drops, ass in the air, does not mean you have strong brakes. It just
means you can't use strong brakes from that position.

Now if you had a riding position that allowed you to get your belly on
the saddle and hang your butt down over the rear wheel, and you could
still float the rear wheel, then you would have strong brakes.

Of course, all this matters much more the taller you are (because your
cg gets higher), and the heavier you are (because strong braking for a
150 pounder ain't so strong for a 350 pounder). Still, good rider
position over the bike plays every bit as big a role in getting short
stopping distances as braking power does. Drop bars are lousy in this
respect, unless 'cross-style bar-top levers are used.

Chalo Colina

"David L. Johnson" wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:26:47 +0000, Mr. E. Mann wrote:

rides and have found it uncomfortable, particularly my hands get numb
after a while.

Primarily because mountain bars do not allow the several hand positions
that road bars do.

That must be why so many 1000 mile/day motorcyclists use drop bars.
Hey... they never use drop bars!

I think you will find that you have enough strength in your hands to send
yourself over the bars of a road bike. That is more braking strength than
you need.

It's much easier to send yourself over the bars when you're already
halfway there; braking power is largely wasted when rider weight is
plopped forward like that.

Road bars offer more positions for your hands, and allow
you to get your body out of the wind while still having control over the
brakes and gears.

Drop bars sacrifice the one really satisfactory hand postion for a
variety of lame ones, all to enable folks to put their bars too low
and carry too much weight on their hands. For most riders it's a
terrible bargain.

Chalo Colina

Now if you had a riding position that allowed you to get your belly
on the saddle and hang your butt down over the rear wheel, and you
could still float the rear wheel, then you would have strong brakes.

Nah, you'd have a butt-down belly-hanging panic stop.

I'm no stranger to this.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

"Jose Rizal" wrote in message
link.net...

tubing. It's not an issue to get any shaped handlebar you like. The
fact is that not very many at all choose the common drop bar shape.

Yeah, not many people in countries where multi-gear bikes are rare and true
long-distance (50+ miles a day) riding is even more rare. When you are
cruising around the city with a big load and don't ride more than 10 miles a
day, a flat bar makes sense. But when you are covering great distances at
much higher speeds, aerodynamics are very important and the most comfortable
way to get aerodynamic is with a drop bar.


You should also note that the upright position on
cargo, utility and even single-speed bikes places most of the rider's
weight
on the saddle, not the hands.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. Thus the lack of a need for a drop bar. In fact, you could
stick any shape of bar on the bike and it wouldn't much matter. Their weight
is being carried by their butt. Which, if you bother to do any distance on
your bike in this position, is very uncomfortable. They have just gotten
used to it.

To take this argument one step further, consider the role of the
recumbent
bike in the third world. While it is obvious that a recumbent would be a
lot
more comfortable, how many pictures do you see of recumbents there?

Another ridiculous argument. You're seriously comparing a type of
bicycle to handlebar shape and the ease with which you can obtain
either?

The argument you are putting forth is as follows - people who ride utility
bikes choose bikes with flat bars; the people who ride these bikes are
searching for the most comfortable bike, thus the flat bar must be the most
comfortable bar. But this is a logical fallacy. The problem you are ignoring
is that it isn't a completely open market, thus the people do not have all
of the choices that we have. Take a look at touring websites where folks are
crossing continents. Unless they are going off-road, they are riding with
drop bars. Here's a good place to start: www.crazyguyonabike.com


summarise it, "Recumbents can be mass produced in [insert country here],
hence they can't be too expensive for poverty-stricken people, but
they're not available and won't be accepted even if they were."
Whatever the point of this is, it's irrelevant to the issue discussed.

The point is that you are talking about comfort and many people suggest that
the most comfortable bike out there is a recumbent. So, why don't we see
these being used all over the place for utility purposes? It is a market
issue. Besides, your paraphrasing screwed it up. I suggest that if you were
right, recumbents would be norm.

Modern multi-speed mountain
bikes are available all over the place, but they just aren't seen in
India.
By your arguments, they would be more comfortable and certainly more
efficient.

I don't see that at all. Again, misrepresentation abounds in your
argument. Drivetrain and gears are not in the same league as simple
handlebars in terms of ease of availability, cost, and manufacture.

Ah, so you do have some understanding but fail to see the point. I am
suggesting with this line of thought that the reason flat bars dominate in
the third world is "ease of availability, cost, and manufacture," not
because they are the most comfortable thing around.

snip

So? That says nothing about the ease of operation, which is my point.


Ease of operation. Hmmm. Squeeze the lever. You're right, that's tough.


If your brakes are set up properly, the amount of force
required to brake from the hoods is minimal and modulation is a
non-issue.

Rubbish. The fact is that it requires more effort and more time getting
used to operating the brake from the hood than it is from a mountain
bar. This isn't in dispute: the fact that you're used to it doesn't say
anything whatsoever to the relative ease with which you do it compared
to mountain bars. Have you ridden a modern mountain bike lately?

Perhaps it is just you that has a problem. The most difficult part of a road
bike (and mountain bike for that matter) is understanding the proper use of
the gears. Any bonehead can squeeze the lever to make the brakes work. I
also suggest that you pay attention when reading my posts. I clearly stated
that I commuted on a full-suspension mountain bike for years. I also stated
that I ride it off-road. Perhaps you think I have no experience with all
types of brakes? Right now I have a bike with a coaster brake, another with
centerpulls and road levers, another with dual pivot and road levers,
another with cantilevers and mountain levers, and a final bike with v-brakes
and mountain levers. I find the dual pivots are the easiest to squeeze and
modulate. The v-brakes are about the same in resistance, but are much more
difficult to modulate.

It takes hardly any force to brake from the hoods with modern brakes.
Even
my wife can do it with her petite hands.

Again, by "hardly any force" you really mean "force which you've gotten
used to". If you have any experience with mountain bars at all, you'll
be better positioned to know that brake operation takes less effort.

No, I mean hardly any force. Dual-pivot brakes offer little resistance,
provide great stopping power, and are easy to modulate. As I stated above,
the v-brakes are harder to modulate with a lever you claim is easier to use.


Road bars allow you to keep your palms rotated inward.

So do bar ends on mountain bars.

Uh, yeah. They also open your chest up more (important in comfort and
aerodynamics) and move your hands away from the controls. Sure, you can get
alternate brake levers, but doesn't this fly in the face of your argument
for ease of availability, cost and manufacture?


I never discounted the fact that there are
many people who find dropbars more comfortable. My point is it isn't
the ultimate solution handlebar for everyone, and in fact is not even
near, even with long-distance riders.

You really need to drop this "long-distance riders" argument. You equate
people who ride fifty or more miles a day to people who use utility bikes to
haul a load around the city. That is comparing apples and oranges. Everyone
here agrees that different bars are appropriate for different bikes, but for
long-distance use, you can't beat a drop bar.


Of course, you will argue that you can get the same thing with a set of
bar-ends. But this is simply not true. When you use bar-ends, your hands
have to move to a position that is wider, thus keeping your arms out of
the
best alignment (the best alignment would be directly forward - the place
where you put your flat-bar grips, no?).

No. Where did you get this idea from? The best alignment is the one
which is most comfortable.

This is basic ergonomics. The amount of comfort will be related to how much
of a bind you place your body in. The natural position for your hands if you
extend your arms forward is not palm down.


This also creates greater frontal
area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has
aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using
utility bikes?

Since when has aerodynamics been a concern for comfort of your hands?

Aerodynamics plays a major role as velocity increases. One seeks the most
aerodynamic position as speed increases. Just try to achieve the same
aerodynamic positions with a flat bar that you can with a drop bar. This is
all about comfort. For people using utility bikes, the speeds are always
low, thus the needs for aerodynamic efficiency are low, thus the lack of a
need for a drop bar.


Without a set of
aerobars attached to your flat bars, you simply cannot duplicate the
full
range of positions available with a set of drop bars.

Irrelevant. Aerodynamics isn't the issue for comfort of your hands.

Again, body position is important to aerodynamics and the type of bar
determines how aerodynamic your body position can be. In order to maintain
the best position, you need the right bar. You cannot comfortably maintain
an aerodynamic position with a flat bar - even with bar-ends installed. I
switch between different bikes and different positions all of the time. I
know the capabilities and comfort levels on each bike.

For long rides where the body position is not likely to change for
long periods of time, it's hard to beat a drop bar. For off-road rides
where
moving around on the bike and changing positions often is the norm, flat
bars rule.

Ah, so you can move around with a mountain bar if you're off-road, but
not if you go on road? You might need to re-think that statement.

Perhaps you need a little clarification. When riding off-road, you are
forced to change positions often. Climbing hills, dealing with tight
switchbacks, riding over washboards, bombing down descents all force you to
move around on the bike. When on-road, the rider has a tendency to find a
position and stick with it for long periods of time. There just isn't the
need to move around on the bike. This is when the relative comfort becomes
clear. I should know - I commuted by mountain bike for many years. If you
spend a little time around this forum, you will see that this is a common
problem. People ask about numbness (usually of their unmentionables) and the
solution is often to change positions more often. When it is in the hands,
flat bars really only offer two positions - on the grips (and some
variations thereof) and on the bar-ends. The drop bar offers many more and
they are more ergonomically correct because on most of them the palms are
pointed inward. For utility bikes, this is moot since the ergonomics of the
bike places the rider's weight on their butt, not their hands. For the
forward position of road and mountain bikes (when ridden on the road), this
is very important.

Please don't take on a patronising attitude towards "third-world"
countries. Their need for comfort is exactly the same as "ours". The
availability of differently shaped handlebars is just as easy as it is
"here" in the "modern" world. Handlebars are not the same as gears or
other drivetrain components. Types of bikes are not the same as type of
handlebars. Recumbents and handlebars aren't valid comparisons.

There is no patronizing attitude here. I just happen to recognize that their
needs are different than ours. They do not use bicycles in the same manner
we do. Drop bars do not make sense on a utility bike because the bike does
not place the rider in a position where their weight is on their hands,
drops do not offer the same leverage as a flat bar, and they do not ride at
the same speeds we do. The type of bike is dictating the type of handlebar.
The market, the ease of manufacture, and the availability of parts is
dictating the type of bikes available. Comfort has nothing to do with it.


Your use of the terms "third world countries", "modern world", and "us"
versus "them" shows quite clearly how little you know about the places I
mentioned, the lack of any idea of the situations in those countries,
and the ethnocentricity with which you view those countries. Please
refrain from making arguments about places and situations which you have
no experience in nor knowledge of. An encounter with one student from
India does not contribute to anything near awareness of India's issues,
let alone "third-world" countries.

As a cyclist at a major university with many friends from many parts of the
world, I have had many discussions with people of many nations about
cycling. I have also had the opportunity to witness cycling in the third
world first hand. I know the differences in use. The example of the Indian
was not an isolated event - it was an example to make a point. Don't be
sensitive about reality.

By the way, many European countries also have workers utilising bicycles
as cargo and people haulers. What made you confine your focus to the
"third world"?

Alright, the "third world" is perhaps a bit too far. China isn't exactly the
third world, but they certainly don't use bikes like we do. But you need to
face it, even in modern countries where cycling is common, there is a big
difference in utility bikes, commuting bikes and touring bikes.

But don't give us any crap about market share - the mountain
bike with knobbies has been dominating the market for years despite
better
choices being available for the intended uses. Markets tend to go for
what
is "in" or "cool," not what is best for the use.

This is quite hilarious. You're the one who brought up the crap on
market share. It's your crap. You raised that crap. Please don't
attribute your crap to me. It's impolite and does not add to your
credibility.

You didn't call it the market, but it is exactly what you were talking
about. You say that people who are seeking the most comfortable bikes are
using flat bars. Well, that is called a market. But the markets you were
referring to were incomplete markets. This means that all of the options
aren't available to them. If they were, then the market share of flat-bar
bikes might be much smaller.

-Buck

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...
"David L. Johnson" wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:26:47 +0000, Mr. E. Mann wrote:

rides and have found it uncomfortable, particularly my hands get numb
after a while.

Primarily because mountain bars do not allow the several hand positions
that road bars do.

That must be why so many 1000 mile/day motorcyclists use drop bars.
Hey... they never use drop bars!

Hey, they don't have the same aerodynamics concerns that cyclists do! You
will note that the people riding the fastest bikes where the forward
position is preferrable do not have flat bars. They have "clip-ons" which
are much more angled than the bars on touring or cruising motorcycles. Hand
numbness is a major problem among sport-bike riders. The 1000 mile per day
motorcyclists are firmly planted on the seat with no weight on their hands.
That's why the longest motorcycle rally is called the "Iron Butt".

It's much easier to send yourself over the bars when you're already
halfway there; braking power is largely wasted when rider weight is
plopped forward like that.

The position is about aerodynamics, not braking.

Road bars offer more positions for your hands, and allow
you to get your body out of the wind while still having control over the
brakes and gears.

Drop bars sacrifice the one really satisfactory hand postion for a
variety of lame ones, all to enable folks to put their bars too low
and carry too much weight on their hands. For most riders it's a
terrible bargain.

Again, it is about aerodynamics and comfort in the best aerodynamic
position. To get aero, you must either put weight on your hands or get into
a recumbent position. If you are going to do the former, a drop bar provides
the most comfortable options.

-Buck

"Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m
wrote:

Come now. Hauling cargo and people all day, everyday, for most of the
year is a long-distance proposition. These people do more miles with
heavier cargo than any tourist per year, or even six months. Comfort is
a very big factor in their bike usage, and drop bars don't afford that
to them.

Comfort doesn't mean diddly-squat to these people. They do with what they
have or can get.

Asians can get any shape handlebar they want, really. And they like
comfort as much as anybody, and many of them know more about riding
comfort than most Western recreation-only riders.

You should also note that the upright position on
cargo, utility and even single-speed bikes places most of the rider's weight
on the saddle, not the hands. Aerodynamics and ergonomics are simply
non-issues in these countries.

I suggest that aerodynamics have been subordinated to ergonomics in
their practice.

To take this argument one step further, consider the role of the recumbent
bike in the third world. While it is obvious that a recumbent would be a lot
more comfortable, how many pictures do you see of recumbents there?

On most Third World roadways, the average 'bent would fall into a
pothole and disappear. 'Bents are horrible on bad roads. They were
born on the racetrack for a reason.

Have you bothered to ride a modern road bike lately? Maximum leverage just
isn't needed.

It's not only needed, it's insufficient for getting my 360 lb. body
stopped in a decently short span. The same goes for a bike laden with
lots of cargo, or any bike in less-than-perfect adjustment.

It takes hardly any force to brake from the hoods with modern brakes. Even
my wife can do it with her petite hands.

Consider the petite force it takes to stop her.

I got my hands on an old road
bike which I then modified with flat bars and bar-ends so I could use it for
commuting and recreational road rides pulling a trailer. My position was
considerably more aerodynamic, but I started having hand and wrist problems.
I tried several different stems, modified the position of the bar-ends, and
even tried bars with a different bend, but nothing could make the problem
disappear. The solution was simple. When your arms are to your side, which
way are your palms? Your hands should fall naturally to your side with your
palms inward.

There are lots of flat bars that sweep backwards, e.g. North Road
bars. Your failure to use one, or to locate your flat bars at a more
appropriate height, is your shortfall, not the bars'. Refer to those
Asian cyclists you were denigrating earlier.

Mega-mileage motorcycle riders all-- 100.0%-- use flat bars, none use
drops. Some of their bars sweep back more than others, but none fall
below the level of the saddle. Hence no need to give up the one good
hand position in favor of a bunch of weird ones in order to make
too-low bars tolerable.

This also creates greater frontal
area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has
aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using
utility bikes?

Since when have aerodynamics been a real issue for anyone who isn't
racing?

Since when has ergonomics been an issue to them as well?

Since ever; that's why they use an ergonomically effective riding
position when Western recreational riders are content to make do with
"sporty" positioning.

"Utility" cyclists (that is, those who ride for transportation) and
motorcyclists the world around agree on this. Drop bars exact a big
toll for the sole benefit of better aerodynamics-- which is of
questionable benefit to the average rider.

Finally, since when could you move from a very upright position to a very
low and aerodynamic position with a set of flat bars?

And why would you want to? You gonna take Lance next year, big boy?

Please don't bother using the third-world as an example any longer. Their
wants and needs are quite different from ours.

--More like those of other countries where people ride their bike to
get places, like Holland or Germany. Of course, Dutch and German
bikes are mostly just like Indian or Chinese bikes, only fancier.

Drop bars are just plain goofy; they are imitation of racers for the
sake of imitation, and not for their virtues. Though they are better
suited to lightweight riders who ride short distances than they are to
heavier or high-mileage riders, they are not ideal for anyone who
isn't in a contest of speed.

You don't wear a long pointy helmet or leg fairings when you ride
around, because that would be inconvenient. Why then would you put up
with the inconvenience of drop bars to reap a small aerodynamic
benefit that doesn't really get you anything?

Chalo Colina

Buck:

"Jose Rizal" wrote in message
link.net...

tubing. It's not an issue to get any shaped handlebar you like. The
fact is that not very many at all choose the common drop bar shape.

Yeah, not many people in countries where multi-gear bikes are rare and true
long-distance (50+ miles a day) riding is even more rare.

I don't know where you get your impressions from, but they certainly
have no bearing whatsoever in reality. I suggest you learn more about
these countries you aim your guesses at before you make sweeping remarks
like you do. Hauling scrap metal up hills and unsealed roads 14 hours a
day, or transporting groups of people on a trike for similar lengths of
time accumulate more than enough miles to be considered long distance.
Now you want to put a minimum limit on the term "long-distance" of 50
miles to restrict your argument; saying that comfort doesn't play a part
in any rides less than 50 miles is stupidity.

When you are
cruising around the city with a big load and don't ride more than 10 miles a
day, a flat bar makes sense.

Written without any knowledge of what you're going on about. It's not
that hard to dig up information on the type of terrain, length of rides
and cargo weight that utility bikers experience in a country like
Thailand, for example. Read up on it before you stumble about some
more.

But when you are covering great distances at
much higher speeds, aerodynamics are very important and the most comfortable
way to get aerodynamic is with a drop bar.

Aerodynamics is still irrelevant to hand comfort. Get over the idea.

You should also note that the upright position on
cargo, utility and even single-speed bikes places most of the rider's
weight
on the saddle, not the hands.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. Thus the lack of a need for a drop bar. In fact, you could
stick any shape of bar on the bike and it wouldn't much matter. Their weight
is being carried by their butt. Which, if you bother to do any distance on
your bike in this position, is very uncomfortable. They have just gotten
used to it.

As you have gotten used to your drop bars. The same logic you used goes
against your other argument, in fact. Thank you for pointing that out,
albeit unintentionally.

To take this argument one step further, consider the role of the
recumbent
bike in the third world. While it is obvious that a recumbent would be a
lot
more comfortable, how many pictures do you see of recumbents there?

Another ridiculous argument. You're seriously comparing a type of
bicycle to handlebar shape and the ease with which you can obtain
either?

The argument you are putting forth is as follows - people who ride utility
bikes choose bikes with flat bars; the people who ride these bikes are
searching for the most comfortable bike, thus the flat bar must be the most
comfortable bar. But this is a logical fallacy.

Only when you refuse to acknowledge that utility cyclists who have just
as much need for comfort as any "long-distance" tourist will gravitate
towards the most comfortable arrangement for their bikes.

The problem you are ignoring
is that it isn't a completely open market, thus the people do not have all
of the choices that we have.

The fact that you are ignoring is that handlebars are not rocket
components; many shapes and sizes are readily available in even remote
areas of Cambodia since many of these are simple pieces of steel tubing
that have been heated and bent to the operator's desired shape. They
don't have to go to Flashbang Cycles in ******ville, California to get a
dropbar, the local blacksmith can whip one up for them if they want it.

summarise it, "Recumbents can be mass produced in [insert country here],
hence they can't be too expensive for poverty-stricken people, but
they're not available and won't be accepted even if they were."
Whatever the point of this is, it's irrelevant to the issue discussed.

The point is that you are talking about comfort and many people suggest that
the most comfortable bike out there is a recumbent. So, why don't we see
these being used all over the place for utility purposes?

Who suggests it, and why should their suggestions be your gospel? The
topic I'm on is handlebars, not bicycle types.

It is a market
issue. Besides, your paraphrasing screwed it up. I suggest that if you were
right, recumbents would be norm.

Your suggestion is still wrong, because the basis from which you derived
your argument is dubious at best. Your view is that someone suggests a
theory (recumbents are most comfortable), you don't see it in practice
(utility cyclists don't use them) so there must be something else wrong
apart from the theory. Well, it's most likely that the theory is wrong.
Modern multi-speed mountain
bikes are available all over the place, but they just aren't seen in
India.
By your arguments, they would be more comfortable and certainly more
efficient.

I don't see that at all. Again, misrepresentation abounds in your
argument. Drivetrain and gears are not in the same league as simple
handlebars in terms of ease of availability, cost, and manufacture.

Ah, so you do have some understanding but fail to see the point. I am
suggesting with this line of thought that the reason flat bars dominate in
the third world is "ease of availability, cost, and manufacture," not
because they are the most comfortable thing around.

Ah, so you don't have much of an understanding and fail to make a valid
point. Flat bars do not dominate in the "Third World" (uppercase first
letters). Handlebars come in all sorts of bends and shapes for utility
cyclists in other countries, and not many resemble drop bars. There is
no significant difference in the cost of a bent steel pipe to that of a
straight pipe, since these handlebars are not made of "aerospace"
materials that someone from the "First World" like you pay outrageous
amounts for.

So? That says nothing about the ease of operation, which is my point.

Ease of operation. Hmmm. Squeeze the lever. You're right, that's tough.

Resorting to simplistic arguments don't improve your suggestions. If
you maintain that squeezing a lever from a position near its pivot is
just as easy as doing it from a point further away from the pivot, then
you don't have an understanding of basic mechanics and shouldn't be
arguing in that area.

If your brakes are set up properly, the amount of force
required to brake from the hoods is minimal and modulation is a
non-issue.

Rubbish. The fact is that it requires more effort and more time getting
used to operating the brake from the hood than it is from a mountain
bar. This isn't in dispute: the fact that you're used to it doesn't say
anything whatsoever to the relative ease with which you do it compared
to mountain bars. Have you ridden a modern mountain bike lately?

Perhaps it is just you that has a problem.

Instead of your suggestions being invalid? If you like to think so.

The most difficult part of a road
bike (and mountain bike for that matter) is understanding the proper use of
the gears.

And gears contribute how much to braking in a bicycle?

Any bonehead can squeeze the lever to make the brakes work.

Well, if *you* can...

I also suggest that you pay attention when reading my posts. I clearly stated
that I commuted on a full-suspension mountain bike for years. I also stated
that I ride it off-road. Perhaps you think I have no experience with all
types of brakes?

It certainly seems like that from your post.

Right now I have a bike with a coaster brake, another with
centerpulls and road levers, another with dual pivot and road levers,
another with cantilevers and mountain levers, and a final bike with v-brakes
and mountain levers. I find the dual pivots are the easiest to squeeze and
modulate. The v-brakes are about the same in resistance, but are much more
difficult to modulate.

Now relate all these to handlebars and you might even manage to make a
point.

It takes hardly any force to brake from the hoods with modern brakes.
Even
my wife can do it with her petite hands.

Again, by "hardly any force" you really mean "force which you've gotten
used to". If you have any experience with mountain bars at all, you'll
be better positioned to know that brake operation takes less effort.

No, I mean hardly any force. Dual-pivot brakes offer little resistance,
provide great stopping power, and are easy to modulate. As I stated above,
the v-brakes are harder to modulate with a lever you claim is easier to use.

So now you are on brake type instead of brake levers. Going off-topic
can't improve your argument.

To simplify it for you: given cantilever brake calipers, the brake
levers to operate these will be easier in a mountain bar than on a drop
bar operated from the hoods.

Road bars allow you to keep your palms rotated inward.

So do bar ends on mountain bars.

Uh, yeah. They also open your chest up more (important in comfort and
aerodynamics)

Uh, yeah, what has an "open chest" (whatever that means) to do with hand
comfort? What has aerodynamics to do with hand comfort? Nothing at
all.

and move your hands away from the controls. Sure, you can get
alternate brake levers, but doesn't this fly in the face of your argument
for ease of availability, cost and manufacture?

You brought up the "ease of availability, cost and manufacture" with
your "open market" angle. Own up to it and don't misrepresent my post.

I never discounted the fact that there are
many people who find dropbars more comfortable. My point is it isn't
the ultimate solution handlebar for everyone, and in fact is not even
near, even with long-distance riders.

You really need to drop this "long-distance riders" argument.

You have a distinct lack of comprehension and an annoying tendency to
drop and attribute your own baseless suggestions to others when you
recognise it as false. The term "long-distance" riders versus cargo and
people haulers came from your post, part of which you can see above.

You equate
people who ride fifty or more miles a day to people who use utility bikes to
haul a load around the city.

You define "long-distance riders" as those doing 50+ miles (where...?).
Then you define utility cyclists (where...?) as load carriers around the
city. Both definitions are not only simplistic and wrong (even in the
relative sense), but the worst self-serving definitions I've seen in a
while. Since you can't even guess how many miles utility cyclists in,
say, Vietnam do in a day, nor of the terrain and the consistency in
which they do these, please stop guessing and making up descriptions. I
estimate from direct observation that these people can do 50+ miles in a
given day, with perhaps lesser miles on other days, on hills and unpaved
roads everyday, for most of the year.

That is comparing apples and oranges.

Since you've made up your own little definitions, sure they become
apples and oranges to you. A little thought expended on the matter by
everyone else though will show that this is not true.

Everyone
here agrees that different bars are appropriate for different bikes, but for
long-distance use, you can't beat a drop bar.

"Everyone" here agrees that you can't beat a drop bar for long-distance
use? Well, I don't, so you're wrong straight away. Read more of the
other posts and you'll see that you're still wrong.

Of course, you will argue that you can get the same thing with a set of
bar-ends. But this is simply not true. When you use bar-ends, your hands
have to move to a position that is wider, thus keeping your arms out of
the
best alignment (the best alignment would be directly forward - the place
where you put your flat-bar grips, no?).

No. Where did you get this idea from? The best alignment is the one
which is most comfortable.

This is basic ergonomics. The amount of comfort will be related to how much
of a bind you place your body in. The natural position for your hands if you
extend your arms forward is not palm down.

But you were arguing that they need to be directly forward to be
comfortable. Not so.

This also creates greater frontal
area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has
aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using
utility bikes?

Since when has aerodynamics been a concern for comfort of your hands?

Aerodynamics plays a major role as velocity increases.

A major role in what, and how?

One seeks the most
aerodynamic position as speed increases.

Who does and why, in terms of comfort?

Just try to achieve the same
aerodynamic positions with a flat bar that you can with a drop bar.

Why would someone want an aerodynamic position when all /she wants is to
have a comfortable hand position?

This is
all about comfort.

Another one of your made-up definitions. Being in an aerodynamic
position is *not* about comfort, it is about speed. For claiming to be
an experienced cyclist, you sure don't know anything at all about how
uncomfortable the most aerodynamic position on a bike is for the rider.

For people using utility bikes, the speeds are always
low, thus the needs for aerodynamic efficiency are low, thus the lack of a
need for a drop bar.

The question still stands: since when has aerodynamics been a concern
for comfort of your hands?

Without a set of
aerobars attached to your flat bars, you simply cannot duplicate the
full
range of positions available with a set of drop bars.

Irrelevant. Aerodynamics isn't the issue for comfort of your hands.

Again, body position is important to aerodynamics and the type of bar
determines how aerodynamic your body position can be. In order to maintain
the best position, you need the right bar. You cannot comfortably maintain
an aerodynamic position with a flat bar - even with bar-ends installed. I
switch between different bikes and different positions all of the time. I
know the capabilities and comfort levels on each bike.

You don't seem to understand that comfort and aerodynamic efficiency are
two unrelated, distinct concepts. If one wants to be aerodynamically
efficient, then one's body position is pretty much restricted to trying
to achieve the one ideal position. Then one seeks ways to achieve this
position in the most comfortable way. However, one DOES NOT need to be
aerodynamically efficient to be comfortable in a bike.

For long rides where the body position is not likely to change for
long periods of time, it's hard to beat a drop bar. For off-road rides
where
moving around on the bike and changing positions often is the norm, flat
bars rule.

Ah, so you can move around with a mountain bar if you're off-road, but
not if you go on road? You might need to re-think that statement.

Perhaps you need a little clarification.

No, you do.

When on-road, the rider has a tendency to find a
position and stick with it for long periods of time. There just isn't the
need to move around on the bike.

Of course there is if you want to be comfortable. You're not strapped
in, you're free to move about, whether on-road or off. This is false
reasoning.

When it is in the hands,
flat bars really only offer two positions - on the grips (and some
variations thereof) and on the bar-ends. The drop bar offers many more and
they are more ergonomically correct because on most of them the palms are
pointed inward.

Drop bars offer only three positions. Tops, hoods, drops. Only two of
these offer the inner wrist-inward position. While not dismissing the
benefit of these, dropbars aren't the ultimate in versatility as you
suggest.

For utility bikes, this is moot since the ergonomics of the
bike places the rider's weight on their butt, not their hands.

While you incorrectly define aerodynamic efficiency as meaning comfort,
it will be impossible for you to realise the need for hand comfort is
exactly the same as with any rider, long or short distance.

Please don't take on a patronising attitude towards "third-world"
countries. Their need for comfort is exactly the same as "ours". The
availability of differently shaped handlebars is just as easy as it is
"here" in the "modern" world. Handlebars are not the same as gears or
other drivetrain components. Types of bikes are not the same as type of
handlebars. Recumbents and handlebars aren't valid comparisons.

There is no patronizing attitude here. I just happen to recognize that their
needs are different than ours. They do not use bicycles in the same manner
we do. Drop bars do not make sense on a utility bike because the bike does
not place the rider in a position where their weight is on their hands,
drops do not offer the same leverage as a flat bar, and they do not ride at
the same speeds we do. The type of bike is dictating the type of handlebar.
The market, the ease of manufacture, and the availability of parts is
dictating the type of bikes available. Comfort has nothing to do with it.

Wow, all that without ever having any idea of the situation of utility
cyclists in "Third World" countries. "Their" need for comfort is
exactly the same as yours. The use of the bicycle is more demanding in
their case, and more effort intensive than those for tourists. The fact
that they travel at slower speeds is irrelevant; aerodynamic efficiency
*does not* equate to comfort, and the affordance of comfort is dictating
the type of handlebar. The handlebar market argument is specious; no
high-end market is required, and bar shape is easily variable.

Your use of the terms "third world countries", "modern world", and "us"
versus "them" shows quite clearly how little you know about the places I
mentioned, the lack of any idea of the situations in those countries,
and the ethnocentricity with which you view those countries. Please
refrain from making arguments about places and situations which you have
no experience in nor knowledge of. An encounter with one student from
India does not contribute to anything near awareness of India's issues,
let alone "third-world" countries.

I have also had the opportunity to witness cycling in the third
world first hand. I know the differences in use. The example of the Indian
was not an isolated event - it was an example to make a point. Don't be
sensitive about reality.

Which makes it surprising then that you know so little about it.

But don't give us any crap about market share - the mountain
bike with knobbies has been dominating the market for years despite
better
choices being available for the intended uses. Markets tend to go for
what
is "in" or "cool," not what is best for the use.

This is quite hilarious. You're the one who brought up the crap on
market share. It's your crap. You raised that crap. Please don't
attribute your crap to me. It's impolite and does not add to your
credibility.

You didn't call it the market, but it is exactly what you were talking
about.

No. The reference was to users, not market.

You say that people who are seeking the most comfortable bikes are
using flat bars. Well, that is called a market. But the markets you were
referring to were incomplete markets. This means that all of the options
aren't available to them. If they were, then the market share of flat-bar
bikes might be much smaller.

Another example of misguided conclusions. See above re "options" for
handlebar shapes. Variations of these are easily obtained since they
are simple steel bars bent into shape by low-tech manufacturers and
mechanics. But let's consider your "market share" musings. Cheap
labour in many of these countries and their neighbours, and the
proliferation of non-local investment in manufacturing industries,
including bicycle and bicycle parts, mean that they have access to the
latest gizmos you are able to get a hold of. The technology (which in
the case of steel handlebars is very low) and means to manufacture these
are readily available. The options of cheaper versions are also quite
readily available locally. Hence your imaginations of options being
unavailable to them is just that, and the fact that dropbars aren't
widely used in these countries is not conclusively due to "options
aren't available to them".

Jose,

Let us recall that you were the one that claimed flat bars are the most
comfortable and brought up utility bikes as a evidence to back your claims.
Utility bikes are primarily used in second and third world countries. With
few exceptions, first world countries have moved to a different mode of
transportation. I suggest you provide some evidence that these people are
riding more than 10 miles a day.

You also conveniently forget that the style of the bike is dictated by the
use. You won't find a long-distance tourer riding a single-speed cruiser.
Most transportational cyclists are riding flat bar bikes because they don't
ride far enough and at high enough speeds to warrant a different kind of
bike. For cruising along over short distances, the upright position with all
of the rider's weight on the seat is fine. Force the rider to go greater
distances at higher speeds, and the new requirements will have them
searching for a bike better suited to the job. This is where drop bars come
into play.

And this is why I suggested you quit comparing apples and oranges. Why don't
you more clearly define the parameters and then we can move forward with
this discussion. I suggest that you lump it into speed, load, distance and
terrain ranges. In my experience, bigger loads and rougher terrain demand a
more upright position; higher speeds and greater distances demand a more
aerodynamic position. The most comfortable handlebar, among many other
parameters of the bike, is determined by the type of riding.

-Buck

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...

Comfort doesn't mean diddly-squat to these people. They do with what
they
have or can get.

Asians can get any shape handlebar they want, really. And they like
comfort as much as anybody, and many of them know more about riding
comfort than most Western recreation-only riders.

No. They know about riding comfort when riding slowly over rough roads. They
don't know the requirements for riding quickly over smooth roads.


I suggest that aerodynamics have been subordinated to ergonomics in
their practice.

Aerodynamics are irrelevant to them because of the way they use their bikes.
If there is no need to go fast, then why find a comfortable way to do so?


To take this argument one step further, consider the role of the
recumbent
bike in the third world. While it is obvious that a recumbent would be a
lot
more comfortable, how many pictures do you see of recumbents there?

On most Third World roadways, the average 'bent would fall into a
pothole and disappear. 'Bents are horrible on bad roads. They were
born on the racetrack for a reason.

Heh. True. I was using this extreme example to make a point. When people are
suggesting that the type of bike is determined solely by comfort, then we
should see thousands of 'bents cruising around.

Have you bothered to ride a modern road bike lately? Maximum leverage
just
isn't needed.

It's not only needed, it's insufficient for getting my 360 lb. body
stopped in a decently short span. The same goes for a bike laden with
lots of cargo, or any bike in less-than-perfect adjustment.

Chalo, you and I are of the same Clydesdale lineage. Although you got about
140lbs more of it than I did. But even at 220lbs, plus the weight of the
trailer with a child on board, I find my modern road bike has plenty of
stopping power. My older road bike has adequate power, but it isn't as
efficient and requires greater lever force. Modern road brakes and levers
provide loads of power, even when used from the hoods.

It takes hardly any force to brake from the hoods with modern brakes.
Even
my wife can do it with her petite hands.

Consider the petite force it takes to stop her.

The point was about hand size and force needed to pull the lever. Despite my
weight, my hands are relatively small. I find that my modern road bike has
plenty of stopping power even when pulling a trailer and braking from the
hoods. It would be my preferred mount for pulling the trailer if the
chainstay were a bit longer so my heel didn't hit the hitch.


There are lots of flat bars that sweep backwards, e.g. North Road
bars. Your failure to use one, or to locate your flat bars at a more
appropriate height, is your shortfall, not the bars'. Refer to those
Asian cyclists you were denigrating earlier.

No denigration here. I have loads of respect for asians and africans and
indians, etc. But I am also realistic and understand that their cycling
needs are different than ours. The problem I found with flat bars is not a
function of height or sweep, it is that they rotate the hands palm-down
which is not the best position when riding long distances at higher speeds.
They were fine for short rides around the neighborhood. But on rides of 30
miles or more, I started having problems.

Mega-mileage motorcycle riders all-- 100.0%-- use flat bars, none use
drops. Some of their bars sweep back more than others, but none fall
below the level of the saddle. Hence no need to give up the one good
hand position in favor of a bunch of weird ones in order to make
too-low bars tolerable.

See my other post about motorcycling. You are comparing apples and oranges.


This also creates greater frontal
area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has
aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using
utility bikes?

Since when have aerodynamics been a real issue for anyone who isn't
racing?

Since when have they not? Perhaps you have never had the pleasure of riding
into a headwind?


Since when has ergonomics been an issue to them as well?

Since ever; that's why they use an ergonomically effective riding
position when Western recreational riders are content to make do with
"sporty" positioning.

No, their bikes make a compromise between the speeds they ride, the roads
they ride on, and issues with maintenance.

Finally, since when could you move from a very upright position to a
very
low and aerodynamic position with a set of flat bars?

And why would you want to? You gonna take Lance next year, big boy?

You must live where the wind never blows. There are some distinct advantages
to finding an aerodynamic position when youare faced with a headwind.

Please don't bother using the third-world as an example any longer.
Their
wants and needs are quite different from ours.

--More like those of other countries where people ride their bike to
get places, like Holland or Germany. Of course, Dutch and German
bikes are mostly just like Indian or Chinese bikes, only fancier.

Again, we are discussing two different styles of riding. When I'm going
places, I want to get there as fast as possible. This seems to be the norm
where I live. Over there, the amount of traffic, vehicular, pedestrian and
cyclist, keeps the speed low. Riders just don't need a bike that goes fast
efficiently, thus the dominance of flat-bar bikes.

Drop bars are just plain goofy; they are imitation of racers for the
sake of imitation, and not for their virtues. Though they are better
suited to lightweight riders who ride short distances than they are to
heavier or high-mileage riders, they are not ideal for anyone who
isn't in a contest of speed.

Now who is revealing their biases? I'm no lightweight, but I find drop
bars are the most comfortable solution for the bulk of my riding. I ride
short and long distances, sometimes pulling a trailer, sometimes off-road.
The only time a flat bar is the best solution is when I'm off-road. I
thought the flat-bar road bike would be the best solution for pulling the
trailer, but after doing it for a while, I have learned that this isn't
true.

You don't wear a long pointy helmet or leg fairings when you ride
around, because that would be inconvenient. Why then would you put up
with the inconvenience of drop bars to reap a small aerodynamic
benefit that doesn't really get you anything?

I don't find drop bars to be inconvenient at all. They are certainly more
comfortable and provide significant aerodynamic advantages when the wind
isn't a my back.

-Buck

In article ,
says...
"Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m
wrote:

Come now. Hauling cargo and people all day, everyday, for most of the
year is a long-distance proposition. These people do more miles with
heavier cargo than any tourist per year, or even six months. Comfort is
a very big factor in their bike usage, and drop bars don't afford that
to them.

Comfort doesn't mean diddly-squat to these people. They do with what they
have or can get.

Asians can get any shape handlebar they want, really. And they like
comfort as much as anybody, and many of them know more about riding
comfort than most Western recreation-only riders.

You should also note that the upright position on
cargo, utility and even single-speed bikes places most of the rider's weight
on the saddle, not the hands. Aerodynamics and ergonomics are simply
non-issues in these countries.

I suggest that aerodynamics have been subordinated to ergonomics in
their practice.

To take this argument one step further, consider the role of the recumbent
bike in the third world. While it is obvious that a recumbent would be a lot
more comfortable, how many pictures do you see of recumbents there?

On most Third World roadways, the average 'bent would fall into a
pothole and disappear. 'Bents are horrible on bad roads. They were
born on the racetrack for a reason.

Have you bothered to ride a modern road bike lately? Maximum leverage just
isn't needed.

It's not only needed, it's insufficient for getting my 360 lb. body
stopped in a decently short span. The same goes for a bike laden with
lots of cargo, or any bike in less-than-perfect adjustment.

It takes hardly any force to brake from the hoods with modern brakes. Even
my wife can do it with her petite hands.

Consider the petite force it takes to stop her.

I got my hands on an old road
bike which I then modified with flat bars and bar-ends so I could use it for
commuting and recreational road rides pulling a trailer. My position was
considerably more aerodynamic, but I started having hand and wrist problems.
I tried several different stems, modified the position of the bar-ends, and
even tried bars with a different bend, but nothing could make the problem
disappear. The solution was simple. When your arms are to your side, which
way are your palms? Your hands should fall naturally to your side with your
palms inward.

There are lots of flat bars that sweep backwards, e.g. North Road
bars. Your failure to use one, or to locate your flat bars at a more
appropriate height, is your shortfall, not the bars'. Refer to those
Asian cyclists you were denigrating earlier.

Mega-mileage motorcycle riders all-- 100.0%-- use flat bars, none use
drops. Some of their bars sweep back more than others, but none fall
below the level of the saddle. Hence no need to give up the one good
hand position in favor of a bunch of weird ones in order to make
too-low bars tolerable.

This also creates greater frontal
area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has
aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using
utility bikes?

Since when have aerodynamics been a real issue for anyone who isn't
racing?

Any time I'm riding into the wind, that's when!



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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.