Originally Posted by
jon_baler
thanks! The Marrakesh also does have cable routing for the Rohloff. The cable guides to the rear brake essentially have an extra little flange on each side for the two Rohloff cables. Only downside is that they run on the top tube/seat stay, while the ideal routing for Rohloff would be on down tube/chain stay.
I had the crazy bars on my previous touring bike build, and like them. The only issue I have is that there is a big difference in reach between the hand positions, so choosing ideal stem length for both can be a compromise. I would tweak the design by rotating the forward extensions back slightly to decrease reach. They work quite well with my large rando bag, while a Jones bar would probably interfere with its inboard positions.
AC also has a review of the crazy bars:
https://www.adventurecycling.org/res...gical-persons/
I noticed those Salsa "triple" bosses before. I agree that CS/DT routing for Rohloff would be better, not only aesthetically but it would permit one to angle the housings horizontal or slightly downward as they exit the EX shiftbox, which should mitigate water intrusion into the box. I've seen a few of them this way:
I considered the Crazy bar when it appeared 2-3 years ago but decided against them. I have since read reviews similar to yours (excessive range in reach). I've thought about a Surly Open Bar with barends added near the center (if they'll clear the bends). This would approximate the geometry of a Crazy or Jones bar with perhaps some latitude for bar-end positioning independent of the Open bar itself. This setup may interfere with bar bag.
<-- bf member agent_pombero's image
I've settled on conventional compact drop bars on one bike and 5d bend "flat" MTB bar with the now-discontinued Cane Creek Ergo bar-ends on another bike.