Fifty Plus (50+) - Good road bike for bad backs.

Any suggestions for some good road bikes for bad backs? Thanks.

Of course a lot depends on your individual condition, and most of the rest on your price range. Rivendell (www.rivbike.com) does full customs (probably in the $5000 range) and over-the-counter bikes ($2500) designed so the handlebars are level with the saddle or slightly higher. I have an Atlantis and a Rambouillet (got a great deal on the Rambo used, or I couldn't have afforded both), and I can't even imagine a better bike.
Riv also is one source of tall quill stems from Nitto, which would allow you to raise the bars on any bike that uses threaded headsets (don't be scared off by the "old style" stem--they work great and last forever. I have at least 20,000 miles on the one on my singlespeed, which was my main bike for five years before I converted to SS).
You might look at recumbents, too. I haven't ridden them much, but they pretty well eliminate back issues for most cyclists.

Any suggestions for some good road bikes for bad backs? Thanks.

When my back is bothering me I switch to my Trek 1800C which is similar to the Trek Pilot series. It has an adjustable stem so I can position the handlebars at different heights to accommodate my aching back:(

Are you preemptively ruling out recumbents?

Just as there are and bikes- and other bikes---- Their are backs and "Help- I can't move" backs.

As we get older-These aches and pains come in. I only changed to Road biking 18 months ago and although I do have a Back that aches- stretching out over the bars seems to have taken the strain out of it.

So the thing to do is get down to your LBS and sit on a few bikes. See if a bike with bars below the saddle works- or if the bars have got to go lower. Try a couple of bikes that are too large to see if a longer reach hurts or cures the problem.

Of course just sitting on them is no proof of suitability- that comes with a test ride- but should give you and the LBS an idea of what may be suitable.

A bad back is a relative condition. Stapfam actually likes to stretch out over the bars by lowering them. This would kill me, and have me off the bike in about ten miles. There is a setup for everyone - including the use of recumbents.

For me, I go with a basic Rivendell setup (even tho I don't have one), except I use clipless pedals most of the time. Among the people in our club that have complained to me of discomfort, most have benefited from some version of "bars up".

Now as to some specific recommendation for a roadie for a bad back: I have several bikes, as you can see in my sig. The one that I recommend as being designed with the older, stiffer rider in mind is the Specialized Sequoia Elite. It has a geometry that lends it to the more comfortable touring/recreational posture, while giving good performance. Rides smooth and is built well. I think they still have several different grades of Sequioas. The '06 Elite had CF forks and seat stays, 105 components, and some type of Ritchie rendition of the Nitto Noodle bars. I don't know what the '07's are like, but they sure are prettier.

So, how about my Trek 520? It's very comfy as well. For that matter, so is my old Trek 930 MTB(roadified) - but you asked about road bikes... :)

I had a bad back. Riding must have helped, because I rarely have problems with it now (two years later). I went with "relaxed geometry" and that made a big difference for me. Also, it's well known that white bikes are easier on the back. :D

I probably have the worst back on this forum! Weak back, weak mind! I wish I could ride an upright, but can't. Oh, I can, but don't walk much or at least pain free for a few days afterwards.
So like Blazingpedals suggested, a good quality recumbent MIGHT be a good answer. Don't rule it out just because they look odd, or because of the nonsensical negative stuff about them that gets passed on and on like herpes in a cat house! LOL! Try em - if it feels good, do it! Recumbents, that is, NOT herpes! LOL
Another type of bike that rarely gets mentioned here that IMHO is really overlooked, is one of the new crank forward designs. The entry level ones are rather heavy and not well geared, but some, like the CF series from RANS are really comfortable and can rival the best of road bikes, comfort bikes, and even be used as "mid level" MTB's , although obviously not on really tough steep single tracks, places where old guys like me with a bad back won't frequent, anyway. But for 99% of average fitness riding they are great. I don't own one or sell them, but from what I've seen, I'm convinced that there are a lot of people out there that would be much better served with one of these than anything else.

Had to go look up the CF bike that I saw a guy riding at a century last summer. Couldfn't remember the name - Rans has weird names for their bikes, sometimes.
Anyway, try the Zenetec Pro. It's light, only a hair more than 20 pounds, has great components and road tires, and from watching this guy (who told me ha also had a bad back) he seemed to not only hold his own with standard road bikes ridden by people 20 years his junior, but even seemed to lose a lot of him.
One advantage is that it doesn't seem "weird" like bents, and I doubt that a lot of the roadies he was smoking even realized that it was a different type of bike!
Something like this might work for you.

Rivendell (www.rivbike.com) does full customs (probably in the $5000 range) and over-the-counter bikes ($2500) designed so the handlebars are level with the saddle or slightly higher. I have an Atlantis and a Rambouillet (got a great deal on the Rambo used, or I couldn't have afforded both), and I can't even imagine a better bike.
I ride a Rivendell, and I'm not a flexible person at all. If I'm leaned over even a few degreee too far, my back is screaming. But, with the geometry and high quill stem of the Rivendell, I can ride down in the drop for hours without any discomfort. The price is worth it, believe me.

http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bicycle_models

Try an Atlantis! You can't get that kind of bar height on very many road bikes...

Any suggestions for some good road bikes for bad backs? Thanks.

Steve91562:
What you are looking at in BigPaulie's pic of his Atlantis is the typical Grant Peterson/Rivendell approach to bicycle setup. Basically, it's for the rest of us. The only thing that I disagree with Mr. Peterson about is the tilt of the Brooks saddle. He says tilt it level or down. Brooks says tilt it up. I have found that with the bars at the level you see in the pic, an up-tilt definitely feels better. Level would rotate my pelvis forward, onto the peak of the saddle, causing eventual discomfort at the perineum and a sense of fatique in the hands/wrists and arms, which then transmits fatique up into the shoulders, collarbones and neck.

You ask because of a "bad back".

So, I must assume, barring any medical explanation of such, that you are much like me - arthritis, multiple life related muscle strains, disc degeneration, and age. Take heart. You don't have to buy an expensive bike like a Rivendell to achieve the same set up. Just about any road bike can be fitted or modified to suit. It's not rocket science, and Mr. Peterson has given you the blueprint.

Just get the bars up, and be prepared to experiment with saddles that bear more of your weight as a result.

#1 A bike that fits you
#2 A bike that fits you
#3 A bike that fits you

go get a professional fitting !

Steve, I didn't want to sound catty earlier, but it all boils down to trial and error. Try EVERYTHING, and see what works for you. Stems, bike design, custom fittings, seat types and adjustments, etc. What works for one person may not work for another, in fact, could do the opposite. For example, I know a fellow quite well who had a high end Easy Racers LWB recumbent, who went back to an upright because the bent gave him sciatic nerve pain. Usually the other way around, but you won't know for sure till you try it. How he's happy as a clam on a Specialized.
So don't rule out anything till you try it all. Especially, don't give up and go on to other things, until you've tried everything. Lots of good equipment and ideas out there..........

I don't have a bad back (anymore) but my Surly Long Haul Trucker is set up with the bars slightly higher than the saddle:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c354/tpelle/Surly_LHT/DSCN0412.jpg

Steve91562:
What you are looking at in BigPaulie's pic of his Atlantis is the typical Grant Peterson/Rivendell approach to bicycle setup.

No, this is an Atlantis photo from the Rivendell site. I have a Rambouillet. I recommended an Atlantis because it utilizes even more conservative frame angles.

And I agree with your comments about saddle tilt...my Selle An Atomica is decidedly nose up.

My point about the Rivendell bikes is that they are MUCH easier than most road bikes to get the bar at or above the saddle level, because they still use threaded/quill stems. Threadless bikes have to utilize extreme stem angles to get the bars up. After going through several threadless frames in an attempt to get the bars as high as I wanted, the Rivendell approach was vastly superior. This is not to say that it can't be done with a threadless setup, but threaded/quill is a lot easier...their bars can be raised or lowered while out on the road without adding spacers or swapping for another stem angle. And, I think they look a lot better...although that's subjective!

So Steve- What is your back problem- Or is it just that the bikes you have tried Hurt?

I have a couple of compressed vertebrae that stretching out over the bike cures. Even mountain bikes are OK for me- providing I can get on the bar ends to stop me sitting too upright.

However- when I started riding road bikes just over a year ago- I could not get into the drops for very long. I am talking 30 seconds and pain started. With practice I got so that I could ride in the drops till I was bored so even that sort of back ache can be trained out.

Foraminal stenosis at L4/L5 compounded by a 9mm central protruding disc at the same level, which is on in a canal space that is on the narrow side of normal. That one level is very crowded, but most of the the other levels are good, so I should be grateful. So far the cycling seems to be helping.

Thanks for the suggestions.

When I was pricing Giant OCR-C 3's, the bike mechanic at my LBS offered to replace the existing stem with an adjustable stem that will lift the bars about 2-3 inches. When I asked if he could raise them higher, he offered to add an extension to the steer tube plus the adjustable stem. As I recall he had the capability to raise the bars about 5 inches. Any good bike shop can do the same with a relaxed geometry bike.
Edit, with my damaged neck, I prefer a carbon frame to steel if I'm buying new. Right now I'm just getting back into riding. I had to stop riding for 2 months due to a pinched nerve in my neck. If I return to lengthy road rides, I will have to add a bike with relaxed geometry and higher bars for a more upright position. The Giant OCR-C fits that requirement nicely.

You may or may not need to go to as extremely high position as some are suggesting. The key is to find a position on a bike that works for you and your back. In my own case, I have a herniated L4 disc, I am very comfortable with handlebars 1" below saddle height (originally it was 3" below) and a fairly long reach to the bars. This position works better for my back than a more upright position because it allows bumps to roll along my back rather than being driven straight up my back. Much less impact. The more I ride, the better my back feels.

No, this is an Atlantis photo from the Rivendell site. I have a Rambouillet. I recommended an Atlantis because it utilizes even more conservative frame angles.

And I agree with your comments about saddle tilt...my Selle An Atomica is decidedly nose up.

My point about the Rivendell bikes is that they are MUCH easier than most road bikes to get the bar at or above the saddle level, because they still use threaded/quill stems. Threadless bikes have to utilize extreme stem angles to get the bars up. After going through several threadless frames in an attempt to get the bars as high as I wanted, the Rivendell approach was vastly superior. This is not to say that it can't be done with a threadless setup, but threaded/quill is a lot easier...their bars can be raised or lowered while out on the road without adding spacers or swapping for another stem angle. And, I think they look a lot better...although that's subjective!

I see.

And, I agree that Rivendells are easier to make adjustments to the bar height for the reasons you state. Also, because they have a higher head tube protrusion above the top tube. It's at least a half inch higher than most other quill stem bikes. You can add all kinds of hardware to a threadless stem bike, but it only takes one piece for an old school quill stem.

steve91562:
Stapfam, Bluesdawg and Bobkat point out the differing solutions to back pain. One thing we all agree on is that you have to experiment til you find the sweet spot.

Could the Day6 bicycles be of any use? Just noticed these today. No idea what people think of them.

http://www.day6bicycles.com/index.html

Of course a lot depends on your individual condition, and most of the rest on your price range. Rivendell (www.rivbike.com) does full customs (probably in the $5000 range) and over-the-counter bikes ($2500) designed so the handlebars are level with the saddle or slightly higher. I have an Atlantis and a Rambouillet (got a great deal on the Rambo used, or I couldn't have afforded both), and I can't even imagine a better bike.
Riv also is one source of tall quill stems from Nitto, which would allow you to raise the bars on any bike that uses threaded headsets (don't be scared off by the "old style" stem--they work great and last forever. I have at least 20,000 miles on the one on my singlespeed, which was my main bike for five years before I converted to SS).
You might look at recumbents, too. I haven't ridden them much, but they pretty well eliminate back issues for most cyclists.

Rivendell would put my 86 cm inseam on a 60 cm frame!!!!!! In the 80's I raced on a 54 cm frame. Isn't any benefit of a longer frame cancelled out by a longer top tube?

It seems that Rivendell's solution is just put folks on bigger frames with slack angels which has the effect of raising handlebar height. I'm not sure this would be good for me, because I'm short armed (bigger frames = monster top tube lengths). And it seems that other people are making bikes with longer head tubes and reduced angels (e.g., Sequoia, Roubaix, Pilot, ect.). And then there's the option to get adjustable stems, ect.

Thanks for the help. There seems to be a lot of options.

I ride a Rivendell, and I'm not a flexible person at all. If I'm leaned over even a few degreee too far, my back is screaming. But, with the geometry and high quill stem of the Rivendell, I can ride down in the drop for hours without any discomfort. The price is worth it, believe me.

http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bicycle_models

Try an Atlantis! You can't get that kind of bar height on very many road bikes...

Rivendell requires a leap of faith given their suggestions for frame sizing.

I ride a Rivendell, and I'm not a flexible person at all. If I'm leaned over even a few degreee too far, my back is screaming. But, with the geometry and high quill stem of the Rivendell, I can ride down in the drop for hours without any discomfort. The price is worth it, believe me.

http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bicycle_models

Try an Atlantis! You can't get that kind of bar height on very many road bikes...

What type of frame size do you ride in relation to your inseam length? Just curious. Their recommendations re frame sizing sound counter-intuitive.

Even to an old BOB like me, the Rivendell sizing philosophy seems strange, but sometimes things that seem strange work. I have noticed that the top tube lengths on their bikes tend to be shorter than on my earlier Petersen creation, the Bridgestone RB-1. I ride a 57.5cm RB-1 and Riv would put me on a 60 or 61, but the geometry charts show the top tube to be close to the same as on my bike.

I have similar back issues from S1 through L4. I ride typical race bikes with the bars about 5 - 6 cm below the saddle (I'm 6'3"). I have no lower back problems while I ride. The key for me is to maintain ab and core strength and carefully stretch my hamstrings and hip flexors.

But everyone is different so you are going to have to ride your bike and determine the setup that best works for you. Not everyone with lower back problems need to have the bars so high. If your flexibility is good, able to touch the floor with straight legs, then I would think you have more options as to where to place the bar height.

I think if you went by Rivendell's sizing, the only bike that would fit, would be there's. I think you could get something from the big 3, Trek, Giant and Specialized, that would give you comfort.

Sorry about asking about the back problem- because I did not understand a bit of it----Except that cycling helps.

Bike sizing for comfort is a problem if you do not have a Base sizing to start off with. Now someone has mentioned the OCR series- and this is one of the bikes I ride. An OCR3- basic but sound. This is a Compact frame and with carefull fitting- It is possible to get a high Bar height- relative to saddle. You mention you have a short torso aswell- so it looks as though conventional sizing may not suit so these compact frames are worth looking at.

Then there are the Hybrids. Basically- these are a road bike with straight handlebars. Slightly cheaper than the road versions but in the higher range of them- they can get a high spec lightweight performance bike. Thinking of the Specialised Sirrus and the Giant FCR series. They are very effective bikes and if you do not want the stretched out Feel of a road bike- will be comfortable. And Hybrids at these quality- are not a 2nd rate bike.

Link to Giant bikes below


http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/

The Litespeed Sportive looks promising. I don't think I ever have seen an headtube that long. Anyway, thanks for all the great advice.

I think if you went by Rivendell's sizing, the only bike that would fit, would be there's. I think you could get something from the big 3, Trek, Giant and Specialized, that would give you comfort.

You're right, George. Alot of bikes can be made to fit. But, this being the 50+ Forum, many riders find that the Rivendell "model" is more comfortable. I don't say that everyone has to buy a Riv. Here is a pic of my $150 '95 Scott roadie. It's a 56cm C-to-C which is actually a 58 to the top. TT just touches the fruitbasket ala Rivebdell. Bars high. Saddle tilted up, contrary to Riv's suggestion. In fact, a more recent pic would show the bars a little higher still, with a shorter stem, too. tpelle's LHT is just right, IMO. Also, notice the extended head tube on that puppy, just like a Riv. Sweet setup
http://i24.tinypic.com/2s9ww89.jpg

Oh yeah, I forgot to offer another agreement with George:

The big 3 definitely has caught on with the older crowd. I love my '06 Sequoia Elite.

Any suggestions for some good road bikes for bad backs? Thanks.

http://www.easyracers.com/04-gold_rush.htm

http://www.easyracers.com/04-gold_rush.htm

'bent riders always seem to be smiling... ;)

If your back is real bad then...
forget the drop bars and put on very high up bars..
sit up straight...
sure your speed will drop [5 to 8kph] but you'll be riding pain free.
But be ready for your roadie mates to stop talking to you :)

If your back is real bad then...
forget the drop bars and put on very high up bars..
sit up straight...
sure your speed will drop [5 to 8kph] but you'll be riding pain free.
But be ready for your roadie mates to stop talking to you :)If your roadie mates are going to quit talking to you anyway get a bent and go faster instead of slower.

If your roadie mates are going to quit talking to you anyway get a bent and go faster instead of slower.

If your roadie mates are going to quit talking to you- Try offroad


And I have yet to see a Bent offroad.

If your back is real bad then...
forget the drop bars and put on very high up bars..
sit up straight...
sure your speed will drop [5 to 8kph] but you'll be riding pain free.
But be ready for your roadie mates to stop talking to you :)

Ok, I really didn't want to go here, since my buds have all gone over thre rise, but this bike is one of my favorites. A B67 saddle with North Road bars on an old school Trek 930 MTB. Yes, those are Sakae OvalTech chainrings...

I used to have the same bars and saddle on my Trek 520. Got some strange looks on centuries, I'll tell ya.

No back pain.
http://i24.tinypic.com/14cw9dh.jpg

http://www.easyracers.com/04-gold_rush.htm

It seems that bent people are more layed back.:D

I pulled my back out completely lifting weights a few months ago. Even though I couldn't walk without pain, I did a 75 mile bike ride with no problems on my Stratus XP.

>If your roadie mates are going to quit talking to you anyway get a bent and go faster instead of slower. >

Yeah...I have two bents [which I love rideing] but this guy asked...Good road bike for bad backs.... so I was trying to help him out [in his world]... if he ask 'what the best bike for bad backs was' I'd be agreeing with you

I can't resist reiterating....try some recumbents. Layed back is still fast.
Layed back is comfortable. Layed back is, well...layed back. :)

Any suggestions for some good road bikes for bad backs? Thanks.

Find a shop that does custom fitting, and buy a bike thats built to fit your geometry. It will cost you more but in the end your back will thank you!

I am new to this forum. I have been riding for a couple of years and totally love it! Unfortunately I herniated discs L4-5 and L5-S1 two weeks ago. This has pretty much side lined me at least for now. I was really down in the dumps thinking that my cycling days might be over, however reading your posts has given me hope!! Thanks again! I am starting physical therapy tomorrow, but are there any suggestions to help me get back on the road quicker???

There is just no one answer to this question. It depends on why your back is bad. It's a misconception to automatically assume higher than saddle handlebars will help (and an expensive misconception if you have to buy a new bike to try it out). They may even hinder it more in some cases. Some people find that riding with the bars a bit lower than the saddle, but also not too far away, puts the back at just the right angle to avoid pain, and provides better shock absorbing, not to mention better power transfer to the legs.

There is just no one answer to this question. It depends on why your back is bad. It's a misconception to automatically assume higher than saddle handlebars will help (and an expensive misconception if you have to buy a new bike to try it out). They may even hinder it more in some cases. Some people find that riding with the bars a bit lower than the saddle, but also not too far away, puts the back at just the right angle to avoid pain, and provides better shock absorbing, not to mention better power transfer to the legs.

And some of us find that having the bars farther away from the saddle stretches the back out into a more comfortable position.

Glad to see the "some drop might be comfortable" and "further away works, too." Delicate balance for me with back. My back doesn't hurt, doesn't give me any trouble. Neither does my neck, or hip. And they used to. A great deal.

As I train up, I end up lowering my bars to moderate drop. I run a little drop normally. The more drop, the more sensitive I am to fore and aft saddle position. Just right and I'm extremely comfortable on a modern compact carbon bike. My current one runs a 54.8 cm top tube and I have an effective stem length of 120 mm, running drop to bars of from 6 cm to 9 cm, depending on my current conditioning. I'm moderately stretched out, fairly aggressively positioned, and am set for fast cruise and handling.

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/position-is-all-about-comfort-and.html might be useful.

I'm about where I was in 1976 as to performance bike positioning. Oddly enough, when I look at Moulton's fit table: http://www.prodigalchild.net/Bicycle6.htm#FrameChart I find that my empirical position of 55 + 120 matches his recommendation of 55 - 55.5 plus 115 - 120. I'm a little undersquare (longer legs) and older, so 55 plus 115 would be generally appropriate, but I like the current setup.

This position stretches out my back enough that I don't have trouble. I do need to watch my neck. I can't monkey around with my saddle. I'm very sensitive to crank Q factor, cleat placement, etc in this position. A delicate balance. And I take about 4 miles to settle into it. Then I'm good for 80 miles or so.

On the other hand, I commute 2.5 miles and this road bike just doesn't do it. I can't get comfortable in jeans, it's too short a distance, it takes special shoes, and my Wilier goes berserk with extra weight. It doesn't even like a handlebar bag.

So the Rivendell site and the fitting there have interested me. But I have a hard time buying it! I don't mind the quill stem too much, although the threadless make more sense to me in every way. The level bars seem attractive for short trips. The reach is what I don't get on the fitting. And I used to ride bikes fitted about like this!

The site text indicates that "too small" bikes aren't comfortable. I suppose that's right. My Wilier isnt' "comfortable" in a relaxing sense - but I'm not relaxing on it. It's fast and handles incredibly, and I don't notice discomfort. Just that it goes and doesn't make me sore or distracted. I've had "comfortable" bikes. Now I want one again, for just tooling around and commuting!

"If you look at old racing photos or drawings, you'll see bikes with "a fistfull of seat post" showing. That was the rule --- a fistfull of post." Well, maybe. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/IMA/P336~Tour-de-France-Incomparable-Eddy-Merckx-Posters.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Tour-de-France-Incomparable-Eddy-Merckx-Posters_i326132_.htm&h=447&w=400&sz=68&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=uABZtav7v5r01M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deddy%2Bmerckx%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG shows a typical setup for the day. More than a fistfull, and the stem all the way down. Does this ever look familiar!!!

"And yet, riders back then were a lot more comfortable." Well, maybe. The roads weren't anything to write home about. I saw just as much odd positioning. I'll have to disagree.

I've got a saddle at 77.7 cm with 172.5 cranks. Rivendell puts me on a 60 to 62 cm bike. Look at the Atlantis. 61 cm gives a 59 cm top tube. That's 4 cm longer. Looks like they run the bikes with a slightly shorter extension and the stem way back, so they're pulling back about 2 to 3 cm in reach. Front wheel ahead of the bars a good deal. I can see how I could ride something set up this way. Would be fine with weight, too. But handling has got to suffer. If you're not a handling freak, that won't even be noticed, but if you are . . . . This bike has got to understeer like mad, want to go straight, etc.

But it might be a great commuter! Might be easy on the back. Wish I could try one. Very old-fashioned typical bike shop fit!!!

I'm more tempted by http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm Steel frame, can put bags all over. I like bags on the front - better balance. http://www.windsorbicycles.com/touring_geo.htm shows the geometry. I'd normally put myself on the 54 with the 55.5 cm top tube. Only a 120 mm head tube. Rivendell sizing would put me on the 58 or probably the 64! The 64 only has a 59 cm TT, like their suggestion. But I don't think I could do it!

Makes me wonder what really is "comfort" on a bike. Certainly having lots of weight on my rear isn't comfortable for very long!

Rivendell would put my 86 cm inseam on a 60 cm frame!!!!!! In the 80's I raced on a 54 cm frame. Isn't any benefit of a longer frame cancelled out by a longer top tube?

I just got a Bleriot frame, a 55cm. I was in between 55 and 57 and went for the smaller frame. *I* think
their sizing is geared for loaded touring and I wanted at leas an inch of TT clearence. Read through the site. Grant sez that the relaxed geometry make the top tube seem shorter even though it is longer. I used to race on a 54 cm Rossin. The shop I got it from recommended that size even though the thinking back then (1983) was a smaller frame. They were right as it was a comfortable bike. A 55 or 57 Riv might be just right for you. There is one on ebay now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180178351384&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008

The frame is well made and nicely finished. Not as nice a the more $$$ ones but still very nice.

I find drop bars useless except for racing. When was the last time you saw a recreational rider actually using the drops? I had an extra Cinelli #64 handlebars that I cut to use as bull horn bars. It's way more comfortable for this 67 year old to ride. I also use a Serfas Reactive Gel saddle to cushion my back. I have two collapsed discs with the vertebrae in between fractured. I also pump my 90 psi rated tires to 75 psi for a smoother ride.
Here's a pic or two of my setup:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/CharlesC_1940/BullHornBars.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/CharlesC_1940/RoadBike.jpg

I find drop bars useless except for racing. When was the last time you saw a recreational rider actually using the drops? I had an extra Cinelli #64 handlebars that I cut to use as bull horn bars. It's way more comfortable for this 67 year old to ride. I also use a Serfas Reactive Gel saddle to cushion my back. I have two collapsed discs with the vertebrae in between fractured. I also pump my 90 psi rated tires to 75 psi for a smoother ride.
Here's a pic or two of my setup:


What a great idea to cut your Cinelli bars into bullhorns. If I get a road bike I plan to replace the drop bars with bullhorns, in fact I discussed that at the LBS last week. Try as I might, my wrist will be screaming if I ride in the drops for any time at all, and the bullhorns is all I'd need with two hand positions.