Pro bikes look different than our bikes

[toaster]

The pro bikes all appear to be a size too small and the drop from saddle to bar is extreme.

One exception seems to be Lance Armstrong's bikes. Every other bike from the pro peloton looks crazy different from the bikes we post on this forum and what we're used to seeing.

Is it fashion or is there a real reason for it?

Just curious.

[vaxn8r]

Aerodynamics. Makes a huge difference. When the pace picks up you can't get those bars low enough.

[KJMUNC]

One word: flexibility. How many of us can stand with knees locked and put our palms on the floor? Most Pros are flexible enough that they can withstand extreme positions on the bike, which allow them to get into much more aero positions.

[Grant McLean]

One word: flexibility. How many of us can stand with knees locked and put our palms on the floor? Most Pros are flexible enough that they can withstand extreme positions on the bike, which allow them to get into much more aero positions.

I can. Easily. But my bars still ain't nowhere near that low. My thighs hit my
chest long before my bars would be that low.

You don't even need that much flexibilty to ride low. The range of motion
to pedal a bicycle does not require you to be able to touch your toes.
It's about being strong enough to stay in a low aero position, not 'get into' the postion.

I'm no retro grouch, but this mega bar drop is mostly fashion, and guys don't
even use the drops, just the hoods.

Eddy didn't need a monster drop, and he's low.

g

[cleavel]

Hi,

Most of us who race have fairly low bars for aero purposes, but, at least for me, I'm far from being a pro. Large saddle to bar drop is nothing new. Back when I was getting started in the sport (when Eddy was still racing), most of us stuffed the stem as far into the steerer tube as we could.

My bars are still fairly low, but I spend most of my time on the hoods and just a little time in the drops -- especially if I'm not racing. However, the top of my hoods are about as low as many drops and I see many of those people spending the majority of their time in the drops. :confused: So their posture ends up being about the same as mine except that they don't have the option of getting lower.

[Climb01742]

I can. Easily. But my bars still ain't nowhere near that low. My thighs hit my
chest long before my bars would be that low.

You don't even need that much flexibilty to ride low. The range of motion
to pedal a bicycle does not require you to be able to touch your toes.
It's about being strong enough to stay in a low aero position, not 'get into' the postion.

I'm no retro grouch, but this mega bar drop is mostly fashion, and guys don't
even use the drops, just the hoods.

Eddy didn't need a monster drop, and he's low.

g

that's an awesome photo, grant, thanks for posting. ya just gotta love eddy.

[Fat Robert]

1) more fitness

2) ride on the hoods a lot

3) shallow drop bars

4) they're riding the same damn size bikes they rode 20 years ago. 1987s 2.5cm of exposed quill is todays -6 stem on an integrated headset with 5mm of spacer

[djg]

They look more different when I sit on my bike.

Even more different when I turn the pedals.

Time's a wrecking ball kids, but whattareyagonna do?

[Ray]

My bars are still fairly low, but I spend most of my time on the hoods and just a little time in the drops -- especially if I'm not racing. However, the top of my hoods are about as low as many drops and I see many of those people spending the majority of their time in the drops. :confused: So their posture ends up being about the same as mine except that they don't have the option of getting lower.
Sure they do - they can just bend the elbows more. Guys with low bars, OTOH, don't have the option of sitting up as much if they choose to.

No problem for those of you who are racing - you don't want to get up higher - you're pretty much always going hard or somewhat hard. I have freakin' high bars and tons of setback because I'm a slow old rec rider who rarely goes hard at all. I spend a lot of time on the hoods and a fair amount of time in the drops, and some time on the tops too. While my normal position isn't aero at all, when I want to get aero, I can get as horizontal as anyone by just bending my elbows more when I'm in the drops. Seems to me higher bars give you more options than low bars since you can get low on high bars but you can't get high on low bars.

And anyway, reach has as much to do with it as drop. I can even be somewhat comfortable on really low bars if the reach is short enough. I guess its the style, but I just never liked it as much.

BTW, I can generally put my palms on the floor when I'm doing yoga regularly and I still can't stand a low position on the bike. Its less about flexibility than where you're carrying the weight on the bike and how much power you're putting into the pedals. When I'm really cranking hard and my butt is waaay back on the saddle, I can be very very low and be comfortable there. But I'm generally not putting very much power into the pedals, so I need my weight on my butt instead of up on the hands and shoulders.

-Ray

[goonster]

they're riding the same damn size bikes they rode 20 years ago. 1987s 2.5cm of exposed quill is todays -6 stem on an integrated headset with 5mm of spacer

I dunno know about that . . .

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/races06/tdf06/tdf86-hinault.jpg

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/pics/Fignon_l1.jpg

[Len J]

Sure they do - they can just bend the elbows more. Guys with low bars, OTOH, don't have the option of sitting up as much if they choose to.

No problem for those of you who are racing - you don't want to get up higher - you're pretty much always going hard or somewhat hard. I have freakin' high bars and tons of setback because I'm a slow old rec rider who rarely goes hard at all. I spend a lot of time on the hoods and a fair amount of time in the drops, and some time on the tops too. While my normal position isn't aero at all, when I want to get aero, I can get as horizontal as anyone by just bending my elbows more when I'm in the drops. Seems to me higher bars give you more options than low bars since you can get low on high bars but you can't get high on low bars.

And anyway, reach has as much to do with it as drop. I can even be somewhat comfortable on really low bars if the reach is short enough. I guess its the style, but I just never liked it as much.

BTW, I can generally put my palms on the floor when I'm doing yoga regularly and I still can't stand a low position on the bike. Its less about flexibility than where you're carrying the weight on the bike and how much power you're putting into the pedals. When I'm really cranking hard and my butt is waaay back on the saddle, I can be very very low and be comfortable there. But I'm generally not putting very much power into the pedals, so I need my weight on my butt instead of up on the hands and shoulders.

-Ray

I run about 4 cm saddle to bar drop and don't run shallow bars......so I can get as low as anyone I ride with. What kills me riding ultra low for extended periods is not my flexibility....it's my neck, straining to be able to look forward through my eyelids. YMMV

Len

[coylifut]

they are definately riding bikes at least one size smaller these days. however, the position hasn't changed all that much. the hoods on hinault and lemond's bikes are positioned much lower on the bars although their bar tops are higher.

[wanderingwheel]

they are definately riding bikes at least one size smaller these days. however, the position hasn't changed all that much. the hoods on hinault and lemond's bikes are positioned much lower on the bars although their bar tops are higher.
That reminds me of a lineup I saw of pro bikes from Brett Horton's collection. They spanned a few decades, 70's to recent bikes, and although they were from many different riders, most had about the same saddle height. The trend to lower handlebars was very obvious, but the hoods and brake levers all appeared to be at about the same height.

[Fat Robert]

they are definately riding bikes at least one size smaller these days. however, the position hasn't changed all that much. the hoods on hinault and lemond's bikes are positioned much lower on the bars although their bar tops are higher.


what do we mean by smaller? except for colnago, you don't see many level TTs...so its hard to compare right there. i don't think stem lengths have changed that much. the tops were higher on 80s bikes becuase of the deep drop bars -- if you're at the low limit with the drops, the deep drops give you (oddly) a higher tops position -- this was greg's reason for the 66s...a low aero drop, but a higher, more comfortable top.

all those pictures have them riding the tops, which distrorts things. look at hinault and lemond when they were in the drops, and the position is no different than today.

i may be exposing myself as a jackazz, but here goes. lets take a -17 quill, threaded HS, and deep drop bars (cinelli 66) as the starting point. Now we go with saddle-to-bar drop:

shallow drop bars -- -1cm
integrated headset -- -2cm (-3cm total)
-6 stem (120mm) -- +2 cm (-1cm total)

so, in this case, to get the same hand position in the drops, the overall height dropped by 1cm. so, maybe you could ride a 1cm smaller frame c-c. but throw in a 5mm spacer, and now you achieve the contact points on a .5cm smaller frame. or maybe you just run 1cm of spacer and you're on the same damn bike you rode in 1987....

the prob is that they're all on slopers, which throws all the visual lines off...but look at how little HT there is on greg and bernie's bikes...a -10 or -6 stem, maybe 5-10mm of spacer, and the same size frame would put the drops in the same place....

[Kevan]

I get thirsty. Often.

[coylifut]

what do we mean by smaller? except for colnago, you don't see many level TTs...so its hard to compare right there. i don't think stem lengths have changed that much. the tops were higher on 80s bikes becuase of the deep drop bars -- if you're at the low limit with the drops, the deep drops give you (oddly) a higher tops position -- this was greg's reason for the 66s...a low aero drop, but a higher, more comfortable top.

all those pictures have them riding the tops, which distrorts things. look at hinault and lemond when they were in the drops, and the position is no different than today.

i may be exposing myself as a jackazz, but here goes. lets take a -17 quill, threaded HS, and deep drop bars (cinelli 66) as the starting point. Now we go with saddle-to-bar drop:

shallow drop bars -- -1cm
integrated headset -- -2cm (-3cm total)
-6 stem (120mm) -- +2 cm (-1cm total)

so, in this case, to get the same hand position in the drops, the overall height dropped by 1cm. so, maybe you could ride a 1cm smaller frame c-c. but throw in a 5mm spacer, and now you achieve the contact points on a .5cm smaller frame. or maybe you just run 1cm of spacer and you're on the same damn bike you rode in 1987....

the prob is that they're all on slopers, which throws all the visual lines off...but look at how little HT there is on greg and bernie's bikes...a -10 or -6 stem, maybe 5-10mm of spacer, and the same size frame would put the drops in the same place....

why are you arguing with me. you just said the same thing i did but used 3x the words.

[Fixed]

grant 's one of the smartest cats around imho
cheers

[Fat Robert]

why are you arguing with me. you just said the same thing i did but used 3x the words.

i'm not arguing...I was trying to figure out if we agreed or not.

you said the bikes are smaller...I dunno if they are or are not..they look smaller...but how much of that is due to the sloper thing, how much is due to the bar thing, how the heck do they even measure frames these days....

i don't think I said the same thing...but i may just be thick

i'm not arguing, though. just figuring.

[MilanoTom]

After I got my Pegoretti, I started to wonder if I'd gotten a frame that was really too small for me. Then I happened upon this guy's bike:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=liquigas_cannondale_luca_paolini

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/probikes/?id=liquigas_cannondale_luca_paolini/Luca_Paolini_Liquigas_Cannondale_System_Six_rider_ and_bike

There looks to be barely any slope to the top tube. Paolini is two inches taller than me, and is riding a frame with about the same center-to-top seat tube, a half-centimeter longer effective top tube, but a 20mm longer stem. The frame sure looks tiny from where I'm sitting (at the office, supposedly working).

Tom

PS - Sorry for the links. One of these days I need to learn how to insert photos.

[Fixed]

bro that looks about the right fit



when he was ten
cheers

[coylifut]

i'm not arguing...I was trying to figure out if we agreed or not.

you said the bikes are smaller...I dunno if they are or are not..they look smaller...but how much of that is due to the sloper thing, how much is due to the bar thing, how the heck do they even measure frames these days....

i don't think I said the same thing...but i may just be thick

i'm not arguing, though. just figuring.

i was giving you a hard time, but i didn't include one of those faces or jumping nanas. anyway, i think these guys are riding a bike that's about 1-2 cms shorter in both the top and down tubes and a 1-2 cm longer stem than 20 years ago. they still look the same on the bike, but the bike looks different. the jerk only shows up when you don't need him.

:banana: :banana: :banana:
:butt: :butt: :butt:
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Grant McLean]

The frame sure looks tiny from where I'm sitting


it looks small to me too, but i guess that what "style" the kids roll these days.

My DeRosa is much bigger than what i see most guys on, but I think it's just perfect.
(despite the fact that most of the logo on the seatpost is buried in the seattube)

The fashion swings that have reached the end of the pendulum at tiny.

-g

[Fixed]

My DeRosa is much bigger than what i see most guys on, but I think it's just perfect.

me too
cheers

i like the nago too and then....
in truth i like sachs the best but that's me

[Erik.Lazdins]

Is it better to have a bit less saddle to bar drop than your max so that you can bend the elbows a bit flatten the upper shoulder to get nasty on the bike rather than reaching straight armed to the drop?

Eddy's pic shows he isn't totally straight armed and he looks not to be reaching.

Another guy who I've noted that does this is George Hincapie.

I suppose it comes down to preference and what feels right.

[Ray]

Is it better to have a bit less saddle to bar drop than your max so that you can bend the elbows a bit flatten the upper shoulder to get nasty on the bike rather than reaching straight armed to the drop?
You gotta be better off with bent elbows than locked ones. For shock absorption if nothing else. I suppose if you bent them more than 90 degrees, you might start having trouble supporting yourself, but anything between slightly bent and about a right angle seems good to me. And you can always bend 'em a bit more to get more aero. Which to me, argues for higher bars than a lot of folks seem to have.

-Ray

[Brons2]

The pro bikes all appear to be a size too small and the drop from saddle to bar is extreme.

One exception seems to be Lance Armstrong's bikes. Every other bike from the pro peloton looks crazy different from the bikes we post on this forum and what we're used to seeing.


Thank God. Non-racers will be miserable riding pro type bikes. There's no rational reason for riding a pro-type geometry if you're not racing.

[jerk]

it's not any different than it ever was. positions haven't evolved that much it's just that hoods have come up on the bars and have replaced the drops as a primary riding position. another thing you guys are failing to see is that the average european and the average cyclist is much taller than he was even a generation ago. big guys run more drop.

take a look at one of merckx's bikes. you can superimpose tom boonens bike on top of it and the saddles pedals and hoods are are all pretty much in the same place....the only difference is that the tops of eddy's bars are higher and his drops are lower.


jerk

[Fixed]

bro excuse me if i'm wrong here (which want be anything new) but sprinters and hill climbers have different setups and fat old cats do too ?
cheers

[jerk]

bro excuse me if i'm wrong here (which want be anything new) but sprinters and hill climbers have different setups and fat old cats do too ?
cheers


yup. but its mainly morphological. tall people generally need more drop and generally aren't great climbers. that being said, a midget stocky sprinter like mcewen's bike isn't set up all that different than a skinny basque of the same height.

as for fat old cats, ask "butch rides". he'll know.

jerk

[e-RICHIE]

fat old cat bicycle accessory atmo
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/228783/2/istockphoto_228783_vintage_price_tags.jpg

[saab2000]

Jerk,

Welcome back.

I was talking to a Bostonian today. Thought of my visit to the shop. Happy with the bibs I bought there. Hope to visit again soon!!!

J

BTW, at the end of the day it's 'just riding a bike', huh? Some are faster than others?!.... :beer:

[Fixed]

bro we got e-richie the jerk ,your friend, grant ,and sabb and swoop there is a team and they all have cool bikes imho man this is great
cheers :beer:

[saab2000]

The don't look different than our bikes? Well, maybe they do.... No more steel. No more level top tubes. No more 'skinny' tubes. But the drop is no different. Comfy to me. Even with the beer gut! :beer:

It ain't about 'flexibility' or ultra-fitness or being fast. It's just what works for some people. This bike is a daily rider of mine. It is comfortable. Stable. 'fast'. Just a bike. And no sore back after 100 miles. It is what it is.

[Fixed]

bro is that your fav. bike ? friction or indexed ? sorry for the questions .tubulars i know
cheers :beer:

[saab2000]

bro is that your fav. bike ? friction or indexed ? sorry for the questions .tubulars i know
cheers :beer:

Friction :beer:

It was what there was at the time. 'Cept I coulda gotten indexed.

This bike was made in 92 in Minneapolis. Rode it in Super Duper Weeeeaaak in Milwaukee. Rode in the Sihlseerunfahrt in Einsiedeln in Switzerland. Rode it in the Hegirennen in Winterthur in Switzerland. Rode it in the Klausenstaffete up the Klausenpass with Beat Zberg in 94. (Got dropped uphilll at least!).

Now it rides in Grand Rapids, MI and gets dropped there too!! :bike: But, yeah, it has some stories to tell and has not only ever been dropped.

[Fixed]

bro you ever have down time in tampa let me know you can ride my merckx i think it will fit .
cheers

[learlove]

very nice bike SAAB. I just built an 1984 guerciotti SL frame with 87 chorus. will post pics soon.

BTW guess who one of my FAs is on the trip I'm flying right now. Yeah - Nelson Vails. How cool is that? - and he gets to cut out in the middle of this 4 day to go to the tour of MO, apparently the company owes him a favor for him helping them last month.

[Simon Q]

+1 to having bars high enough where you can use all of the bars properly. I know heaps of dudes who don't race but get set up with heaps of drop to look cool and spend 95% on the tops, 4.9% on the hoods and maybe .1% in the drops. I am 6'4" and run a drop of around 8 cm which is not necessarily high but also not really radical for my body/arm length and I can put my palms on the floor easily. However, it low enough that I can engage the glutes and back and with shallow bars I can comfortably spend heaps of time in the drops - much more than anyone that I ride with which is nice.

[fstrthnu]

It is all performance driven. I find it very hard to control a bike whipping around corners at 50kph without being able to put a huge amount of weight down on my front tire. The aerodynamic benefits are also substantial and climbing in the hoods or on the tops feels normal even with the exaggerated amounts of drop I use.

Hope that helps.

:beer:

[e-RICHIE]

I find it very hard to control a bike whipping around corners at 50kph without being able to put a huge amount of weight down on my front tire.

Hope that helps.

:beer:
it's also why you never hear about high
speed wobble in the pro ranks atmo.



ps
arrange disorder for kodak sierra nevada they need it bad
;) ;) ;)
;) ;) ;)
;) ;) :D

[Fixed]

bro this bike looks perfect imho
http://www.richardsachs.com/signatureblue.html

[Ti Designs]

+1 to having bars high enough where you can use all of the bars properly. I know heaps of dudes who don't race but get set up with heaps of drop to look cool and spend 95% on the tops, 4.9% on the hoods and maybe .1% in the drops. I am 6'4" and run a drop of around 8 cm which is not necessarily high but also not really radical for my body/arm length and I can put my palms on the floor easily. However, it low enough that I can engage the glutes and back and with shallow bars I can comfortably spend heaps of time in the drops - much more than anyone that I ride with which is nice.


This is where my ideas on fit and Paul Levine's part ways (I'm not picking on Paul here, he was teaching the Serotta Fit School when I went). Paul's first assumption is that the drops are the primary position on the bike. This makes some sense as you have the most control over the brakes and shifters from that hand position, but as I've said, I don't agree. My primary positions range from the tops where I look for square sholders and a relaxed lower back, to the hoods where I look at the relationship between the rider's center of gravity and the forward pedal (where the weight should fall). There's also the concern of both sprinting and climbing positions out of the saddle, where the hoods need to be low enough to act as a balance point in climbing or a fulcrum point in sprinting. Then there is the limit to the rider's range of motion, which is why so many people can't ride comfortably in the drops. At some angle you can no longer lift your foot over the top of the pedal stroke, so one foot is pushing the other over the top. At very least it's wasting energy, but if you go far beyond that the SI joint has to change position with each pedal stroke, causing lower back pain. You can see this from behind a rider when they are well beyond their own range of motion, their hips and lower spine change position as the pedals come over the top. Knowing this, I still set up most of my fittings with the drops beyond their range of motion, but there's a warning that goes with it - the drops get your center of gravity lower, they get your torso out of the wind, they get your hands all the way around the brake levers, and they hurt after a while - not as much as dumping the bike at 30 MPH in a corner 'cause you couldn't get your center of gravity low enough, not as much getting on the brakes and flipping the bike for the same reason...

The biggest difference in the position the pros use and the common bike is the understanding of how all the riding positions work. Once again, it's all about the rider, not the bike.

[sspielman]

it's also why you never hear about high
speed wobble in the pro ranks atmo.



ps
arrange disorder for kodak sierra nevada they need it bad
;) ;) ;)
;) ;) ;)
;) ;) :D

Thanks for the confirmation...I've long suspected it. I think it is also why you tend to lower your position instinctively for a long, steep descent....

[Grant McLean]

This is where my ideas on fit and Paul Levine's part ways (I'm not picking on Paul here, he was teaching the Serotta Fit School when I went). Paul's first assumption is that the drops are the primary position on the bike. This makes some sense as you have the most control over the brakes and shifters from that hand position, but as I've said, I don't agree. My primary positions range from the tops where I look for square sholders and a relaxed lower back, to the hoods where I look at the relationship between the rider's center of gravity and the forward pedal (where the weight should fall). .....

Looks to me that you said the same thing about Paul's fit philosophy a couple
of months ago, and he said that's not the case:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=363420&postcount=12

just sayin'...

g