Bike Forums - Comfort vs Performance Geometry

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)

- - Comfort vs Performance Geometry (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/99391-comfort-vs-performance-geometry.html)

Allan you have written eloquently on this subject before. I couldn't agree more and why even larger bikes back in the 70's had quilled stem reachs typically of 60-90mm versus the norm today of 100-130mm which puts a bigger rider on a smaller frame with larger height delta between seat and bars. This is BTW...you know this...the exact sizing philosophy of Rivendell. LBS's would put me on a 58cm and I ride a 61 cm c-t bike with a greater level of comfort and can actually use the drops.
George

For the average person on a road bike - meaning someone who does not race exclusively - the bar tops should be level with the seat or even an inch higher. Now you can ride in a very upright position when you want, and more importantly, you can reach the drops when you want to get aero.

Most road bikes you see advertised today are set up with the bar 3 or 4 inches below the seat, so that riding on the tops is an aero position, and riding in the drops is damn near impossible for anyone but a hardcore racer. A bike set up in this way forces the average person to ride only on the tops, and having drop handle bars becomes pointless.

Ask yourself what percentage of the time you spend riding in the drops. If the answer is less than 50%, you may have your bars set up too low. By raising the bar, you actually get to use all of it.

My .02 worth. Caution - those younger than 40 will think I'm full of sh*t! ;)

Just remember that comfort and performance aren't mutually exclusive. I seem to recall that Lemond once said he won the TdF on a bike that would be considered "touring geometry", with slacker angles and such.

Unfortunately, the road bike industry is now obsessed with looking like a racer at all costs. A pet peeve of mine is now the lack of adjustability with stems. How many bikes in your LBS have more than maybe 1/2" of spacers (if any) above the stem? Give me an old quill stem so I can adjust the bar height for my personal comfort. The same goes for the compact frames. I say it's better to go larger on a frame so the seatpost isn't maxed out from the start.

Just make sure that you are comfortable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanbikehouston

Back around 1980, a "Comfort Bike" and a "Performance Bike" were the same bike. It took about a minute to raise the bars to a rider's preferred height (and raising the bars also brings the bars back closer to the saddle. "Pain" that comes from pretending to be a 25 year old Pro rider.

After all of the "improvements" that have been made on road bikes over the past decade, many middle aged riders are on bikes that have the bars three or four inches lower than the saddle, and they are in a lot of pain...crotch, neck, back, hands, wrists.

However, you can still get a comfortable fit on a road bike. Buy the largest size you can comfortably ride. So, at 5'9", I am riding size 58 bikes, not the size 55 or 56 a bike shop would put me on. That makes it easier to get the bars up higher. Then, add a stem that brings the bars back closer to the saddle, and raises them up as high as the saddle.

The funny thing is, the bike with the best performance is the bike that is the most comfortable. If you are comfortable, you ride more hours per day and per week. You get in better shape, and ride faster. A lot of "performance bikes" that don't fit well end up hanging in the garage...they don't perform well there.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!

In that vein, see if you can't find a Gunnar Sport to try.

I tried quite a few bikes and decided that the Lemond Versailles was a good compromise between comfort and performance. If I read Lemond's website right, the Versailles and Big Sky have the same geometry, they just show pictures with the seat lower on the Big Sky to promote it as a "comfort" bike.

Bruce