Handlebar drops.....(est l'ajustement francais)

[merlinagilis]

I'm a little confused........
SOme people here are talking about raising their handlebars so high that they finally get to use their drops all the time. But aren't the drops meant to be for when you want to get a bit more aero and hammer for a while?
Why not raise your bars high enough so that the tops of your levers are at a comfortable height, and leave your drops a little lower for those special occasions??

[Kevan]

determined by a rider's flexibility and ultimately avoiding having raised thighs thumping the rider in the chest?

[merlinagilis]

If you have your drops low enough that your quads are hitting your chest, then you are not using the 'french fit'!! HAHAHA. Sounds like you got an Axel Merckx setup goin on!

[Kevan]

while I don't recall my saddle/bar height difference, I'm not inclided to use my front wheel's quick-release as a handle bar.

[Richard]

I tend to agree -- the drops should be useable when the circumstances are right, but to set up a bike so that they are used "normally" seems silly to me. The tops and hoods are then like an easy chair. Every now and then someone will start a thread about their bikes bad high speed manners. This setup is probably the culprit.

[dbrk]

I very normally ride in my drops with bars raised to such a level and it is more aero than my position on the hoods. The objection raised here seems to me that folks like me are somehow not aero enough. Who is being silly? It is not at all the case that higher bars adversely effect the handling of a bicycle if the bicycle is designed with this set up in mind, such as the size up bikes you can see in the gallery under my name. Sure, bikes that are sized up without certain adjustments in geometry and fit will handle poorly, just as poorly as bikes that are more aero will make many riders uncomfortable. What is at stake is a design feature that needs to meet riders needs. The suggestion that drops where hood are "normally" is somehow a bad idea is just a preference, one that reflects the prejudices of very recent bike "fit" notions. All that needs to happen to make the bars more useful is to put them where you like, but putting them taller is not a bad idea at all. The bike simply has to be designed appropriately and the fit aimed to the rider's preferences.

dbrk

[merlinagilis]

I dunno, I can't imagine bombing into a corner and trying to handle my bike with my bars higher than my saddle, on a frame that is 5 cm too large for me by 'conventional' standards. That said, I admit I've never tried it..

[dbrk]

A French fit does not place the bars taller than the saddle. Rather, in a position near-level or a tiny tiny bit below level. Bars above the saddle, a position that Grant Petersen will sometimes favor, is not for bombing through corners. A French fit bike, much taller than conventional "wisdom", will carve corners just fine albeit not like a smaller bike but what you can in overall comfort you might well make up in speed over the longer term. It's the conventional wisdom of the post-mtn-bike era that is the new kid on the block and like many kids is not nearly as wise as it believes itself to be. Unless you are a racer or simply prefer a low bar position (nuthin' wrong with that!), then the models used 30 years ago are, imho, _much_ better for most recreational riders. I do not believe it has to do with flexibility. I am physically as flexible as anyone on this Forum. I would actually bet donuts on that. I don't ride a tall bike because of injury or absence of flexibility or any such reason. I ride it because having the drops more available and the bar/saddle drop less makes me faster and more comfortable. I take responsibility for coining the term "French fit," but what I describe is outlined plainly by the great Daneil Rebour and evidenced in hundreds of brilliantly riding examples from the likes of Herse and Singer, et.al. It is that American cycling tradition is 1. rooted so strongly in Italian race frames and 2. so eager to embrace the influences of mtn biking, modern racer values, etc. that we are where we are today. None of this is bad, but it is what it is. There is, I assure you, more than one way to skin the cat of fit.

dbrk

[flydhest]

snip
the models used 30 years ago are, imho, _much_ better for most recreational riders.

This I think is at the crux of a lot of the debate. To wit, the definition people have in their head of recreational rider. dbrk is spot-on, I think, if we're talking about people who are out for a spirited ride, using body and spirit on a bike ride. For someone who is out hammering with local clubs, diving into corners at 25+ mph and contesting sprints northward of 30+ mph, well, you might think a bit differently. To me, the latter is recreational riding, but I would be surprised if that is the norm. Listen to dbrk, he knows much. Just make sure you know what he's saying. You could learn a lot and avoid confusion.

I do not believe it has to do with flexibility. I am physically as flexible as anyone on this Forum. I would actually bet donuts on that.
dbrk

This is where I might quibble with the professor from the North. I would bet donuts that he is MORE flexible than anyone on this forum.

The man can bend his body and his mind around a problem.

Ignore him at your peril.

:no:

Of course, keep in mind that some things affect sizing as well. For example, in talking about frame size, the fact that the good Prof pedals in a decidedly toe-down manner would add a couple of cm to the size of a frame from the get go.

[Climb01742]

one more thing to consider about hoods and drops--season and duration of the ride. on a freezing cold day in january, i'm almost never on the drops. i'm too damn cold to be flexible. whereas during the spring/summer/fall, i may begin my rides on the hoods, then as i warm up and start sweating, being on the drops is no problem, and can in fact feel better.