First road bike: braking?

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?

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?

It is a major benefit which I can easily feel when riding into the
wind, and gains you much more effect per unit cost than fairings or
aero helmets.

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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On 25 Sep 2003 20:43:08 -0700, (Chalo)
wrote:
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.
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.

Actually, I _was_ in that position. I recall worrying about my
genitals catching the saddle, as I do worry about that when
in that position -- my butt below and behind the saddle.

The point of my story was NOT "whoa, I can do a nose
wheelie"; it was that the brakes easily used much of the
available traction, and more importantly, that they were
able to panic-stop me in a damn hurry to avoid becoming
roadkill.

Brake effectiveness ("strong brakes") is NOT about what
position you are in when you do a nose wheelie. It's about
braking and stopping.

Of course, all this matters much more the taller you are (because your

It depends on how your height is distributed. Some taller
people have an advantage because, in fact, they can
hang their butt behind the saddle, due to longer arms
that can reach the bars from farther back. While not
someone that I would classify as "taller", I find that my
inseam is short for somebody my height; I would,
therefore, have longer arms and torso.

But, once you factor that in, you're right.

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

True, but somebody who weighs 350 pounds is so
far outside the normal design specifications for such
equipment that it becomes necessary to give personal
attention to questioning whether any given item can,
in fact, work well for him. At 210 pounds, it isn't such
a prevalent issue, as 200 pound cyclists are not
uncommon, nor are they far beyond what such items
are designed for

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

Very good point. You brakes won't matter at all
if your CG is two feet above the handlebars, and
you certainly won't make use of strong brakes if
you keep your weight centered over the top tube,
either.

Or, to put it into almost a cliche form:
Equipment won't make up for bad technique.

respect, unless 'cross-style bar-top levers are used.

....but make sure you're using modern ones, not the
suicide levers of yore. Also consider that, while using
them, you are holding the handlebar near the center,
which may affect steering in an emergency; it may be
necessary to keep that in mind.

Chalo Colina

--
Rick Onanian

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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!

I would have guessed you LIKED wind, since you left about 60 or 80 lines of
text unrelated to your reply!

Bill "appreciates judicious snipping" S.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:34:53 GMT, Jose Rizal wrote:
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.

Those examples are nothing like recreational riding,
or even commuting, for most people.

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.

I don't think he said that at all. I think he was rather adamant
that overall comfort is extremely important in such long rides.

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.

He didn't say that aerodynamics was most important for hand
comfort. He said that it's very important for comfort -- meaning,
overall comfort. Butt and leg comfort matter. Leaving all your
weight on your butt all day is uncomfortable just like with your
hands; it's necessary to find bars and positions that let you
balance that. Additionally, being more aerodynamic means
less effort for your legs, which makes them more comfortable,
and allows you to coast more, which helps even more.
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.

So, the result here is that putting excessive weight on either end
is uncomfortable but can be gotten used to. Balancing the
weight between them, then, would seem to be a good idea.

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.

They are in different conditions and use the bike differently.

dropbar, the local blacksmith can whip one up for them if they want it.

I suspect that would be too much effort and expense to
try a handlebar that they have never used before, and
only know of as something that's used elsewhere.

A manufactured product in a store is much easier to
try than having to provide a design, find a fabricator
(which, granted, is probably easier there), and pay for
him to make it.

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?

He was responding to you saying:
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?

His point was that braking on a road bike is easy, the hard part
is shifting and gear selection.

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.

You speak as if hand comfort is the only component of comfort.
An "open chest" means that your arms are spread apart more,
and so you have an easier time breathing. He was supporting
your argument for straight-bars-with-bar-ends. It sounds like
you are arguing solely for the sake of being argumentative.

You have a distinct lack of comprehension and an annoying tendency to

Like your own lack of comprehension that he was arguing
for YOUR side in the above piece?

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.

Do you submit that utility cyclists and recreational distance
cyclists have the same conditions, needs, and preferences?
That is what you seem to be saying, when you say that the
comparison is not apples and oranges. You must at sixes
and sevens.
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?

BTW, people in third-world countries using utility bikes are
likely not trying to beat their previous records; they're trying
to get work done. They're not interested in having fun by
going faster.

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

Only in so far as the things you do to become more aero
(and therefore be more comfortable in other ways) are a
tradeoff against hand comfort.

Aerodynamics plays a major role as velocity increases.
A major role in what, and how?

Notably, a major role in leg comfort. There's more to
biking-comfort than hands.

One seeks the most aerodynamic position as speed increases.

Who does and why, in terms of comfort?

Many people do, without even needing to think about it.
They do it because the wind is uncomfortable, and the
legs are uncomfortable from pushing harder than is
necessary. Also, the aero position is lower, good for a
lower center of gravity, which is an important safety
concern, especially at higher speeds. The aero effect
of said position is a separate issue from the CG effect,
but they both happen from the same single action.

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?

If that is the only thing that somebody is interested in,
then that person should probably ride one of those
old-style swept-back bars; I've ridden one, and as long
as you can deal with all your weight being on your butt,
it's pretty comfortable. The bike is one of those old
cruisers with a 3 speed hub, complete with rack and
rust.
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.

Drop bars, in general, does not equal the _most_ aerodynamic
position. There's more to it, such as the height of said bars,
for example. A moderately aero position can be very comfortable.

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?

Since when has hand comfort been the sole issue when
considering bicycle rider comfort?

You don't seem to understand that comfort and aerodynamic efficiency are
two unrelated, distinct concepts. If one wants to be aerodynamically

They are distinct, but not unrelated.

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.

If, OTOH, one wants to switch between a more aero position
and a less aero position, that one will need more variety of
ways to hold the bar.

While it's true that one does not need to be aero to be
comfortable on a bike, most recreational riders purchasing
a road bike (narrow tires, light weight, etc) are doing so for
excitement. Excitement comes from speed. Aero helps
bring speed and excitement. For the people who are
willing to give up some of the aero advantage, there are,
in fact, flat-bar road bikes, and they can certainly put flat
bars on a more common road bike too.
Perhaps you need a little clarification.
No, you do.

"No, you do!"
"Nah-ah!"
"Ya-hah!"
"I'm telling! Mom!!"

Drop bars offer only three positions. Tops, hoods, drops. Only two of

You obviously haven't ridden drop bars very much.
Here's an incomplete list of positions:
- Tops, like holding a straight bar
- Corners, palms in, fingers forward, heel of hand forward
- Hoods: thumb hooked over top of hood, palms in
- Hoods: Palm on top of hood
- Curve or ergo-bend of drop, palms-in
- Curve or ergo-bend of drop, thumbs hooked, palms down
- Bottom, wheelbarrow-grip
- Bottom, with fingers spread around curve/ergo-bend
- Ends, in palms

these offer the inner wrist-inward position. While not dismissing the
benefit of these, dropbars aren't the ultimate in versatility as you
suggest.

Yes, they are. Is there a MORE versatile type of bar? Maybe
some of the weird ones seen mostly in catalogs...but not any
kind of straight bar with bar-ends.

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.

Wow. That's a bold statement, saying that the need for
hand-comfort is exactly the same for ANY rider. Different
riders, different priorities, different conditions totals up to
different needs.

cyclists in "Third World" countries. "Their" need for comfort is
exactly the same as yours.

I don't buy it. They have different priorities and needs.

that they travel at slower speeds is irrelevant; aerodynamic efficiency
*does not* equate to comfort,

Aero efficiency is one component of comfort for recreational
road-bike-riding cyclists. It is true that it is NOT a component
of utility cyclists comfort.

and the affordance of comfort is dictating
the type of handlebar.

Since when were handlebars the only part of a bike that
have an effect on comfort?

--
Rick "Glutton for crossfire" Onanian

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:53:15 +0000, Chalo wrote:

"David L. Johnson" wrote:

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

Depends on which motorcycles you are looking at. The racing-style
machines commonly called "crotch rockets" essentially do use drop bars --
lower than the seat at least, if not bent like bicycle drops.

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.

Rider weight is not necessarily forward, even on the drops. The quicker
the stop, the more you push your body back.


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.

I disagree. For one, I don't consider the one position offered by
straight bars (even worse with risers or cruisers) to be natural. Your
hand position when on the hoods is actually the most natural of all hand
positions on a bike. Also, upright positions force riders to carry too
much weight on their butt, which after 30 miles will seem like by far the
worse bargain.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

Is there any comparison online about the braking distance
different vehicles take to stop from a given speed? Would be nice
to see how cars (and SUVs), upright bikes (road vs mountain) and
bents (eg. tadpole trikes are claimed to be very efficient, with
two front wheels and the weight way back) perform in relation to
one another.

Is this really an issue to us cyclists, we rarely do 100 km/h?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

wrote in message
...
Is there any comparison online about the braking distance
different vehicles take to stop from a given speed? Would be nice
to see how cars (and SUVs), upright bikes (road vs mountain) and
bents (eg. tadpole trikes are claimed to be very efficient, with
two front wheels and the weight way back) perform in relation to
one another.

Bike brake distance calculator
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

Pete

wrote:
Is there any comparison online about the braking distance
different vehicles take to stop from a given speed? Would be nice

Didn't find anything comprehensive, but here are a few tidbits.

California Vehicle Code, section 26450:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=26001-27000&file=26450-26458.5

Forester translate these requirements as follows:

Passenger cars: 0.54g
Light trucks: 0.45g
Large trucks and buses: 0.34g
Trucks with trailers: 0.27g

Those are legal minimum requirements. Here are some real-life figures:

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/PhyNet/Mechanics/Kinematics/BrakingDistData.html

If we extrapolate the difference between the minimum and real life to
trucks and buses, a bike (with pitch-over reputed to be at 0.67g) falls
somewhat between a light truck and a bus.

Since braking distance varies linearly with deceleration, it would take
you 50% longer (both in time and distance) to come to a complete stop,
compared to a car that's traveling at the same speed. However, cars
often go faster than us, and a car going at 35mph will need twice as
much room to come to a complete stop than a bike going at 20mph.


--
Frederic Briere *

= IS NO MO http://www.abacomsucks.com =