# most comfortable front-end set-up for roubaix



## msg98 (Oct 27, 2011)

can you pls. advise how to make the front-end more comfortable. the main pain-point for me when riding is my hands going numb and uncomfortable. I came across the specialized bar shapers and bar phat and though that could help. Can you guys pls. advise how to set-up/optimize the combination of 1) Handlebars (are certain models more flexy/comfortable vs. others) 2) shapers 3) bar phat? I don't at all care about weight and not very much about steering response/high performance. only about comfort. 

thanks


----------



## tenja (Oct 12, 2009)

Mine is a work in progress, but I found the compact bars and dura ace hoods to be a big help. This was coming from a regular bar and rival hoods.

I'm playing arounds with stems, and flipping stems, to see the right setup. I'm getting there but I am way more comfortable in the compact bar.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

For point of reference, post a picture of your current set up. Generally a higher handlebar takes pressure off the hands eliminating the issues you have....largely the premise of a Roubaix will taller head tube. Biggest mistake many make is they use a riser stem to move the bars up higher which can be a good thing...but they don't go longer on the stem and this results in a cramped cockpit which is counterproductive to not only power but comfort.
I like a carbon handlebar on my Roubaix with long riser stem but I ride a bit stretched out for performance and comfort. Fit is key to comfort...not aids like bar tape even handlebar material. Bar shape matters as well.


----------



## msg98 (Oct 27, 2011)

here are pictures of the setup. for context, i'm 6'6'' 200lbs with large hands and just went shorter with the stem as the 100mm felt too long for me. The current 90mm (i think) feels better.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

msg98 said:


> here are pictures of the setup. for context, i'm 6'6'' 200lbs with large hands and just went shorter with the stem as the 100mm felt too long for me. The current 90mm (i think) feels better.
> View attachment 296139
> View attachment 296140
> View attachment 296141
> View attachment 296142


Says invalid link...try reposting in another format.
What frame size is your Roubaix you are riding with a 90mm stem at 6'6"?


----------



## Snowonder (Jun 24, 2010)

FWIW, make sure the saddle is level. If the saddle is tilted down there will be more pressure on the hands.


----------



## msg98 (Oct 27, 2011)

can you view the pictures now? the frame is 61cm.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

msg98 said:


> can you view the pictures now? the frame is 61cm.


You aren't going to like my answer. I have a friend that is 6'4" and he rides a 64cm Roubaix. That bike is too small for you. The 64cm is available in a very limited quantity and only select models.
Your riding position...lets say you are an average recreational rider...is both too cramped and your handlebar is below your saddle height. To take weight off your hands, you need the handlebar higher. You say you feel too stretched out with a 100mm stem. I will tell you this is a newbie error. The reason why you are uncomfortable is because you are caught in what's called 'no man's land.' You are falling into the handlebar. I can picture your 6'6" frame on your 61cm Roubaix with 90mm stem. By contrast I am 6'1" and ride a 58cm Roubaix with 130mm stem. You are a much larger guy and yet you ride with a reach shorter than mine. There is no way you can get comfortable on that bike.

The counterintuitive element of fit is...if you raise your handlebar with a larger frame and taller headtube you need 'more' reach because the handlebar is closer to your shoulder joints with a taller head tube.

My guess is you sit on the saddle like its a park bench because you have to with that cramped a position. A road bike should be ridden with a rotated pelvis position which will move your weight rearward and take pressure off your hands. You can't do that with a cramped riding position.

Here is perhaps the best article that has been written on the web by a brilliant guy and a talented rider. Notice how he suggests more reach and a higher handlebar for recreational riders:
Numb Hands

Anyway, I know this more than you wanted to consider and the local bike probably told you that a 61cm is the biggest Roubaix but in the past the Roubaix was made in a 64cm. You are a 98% guy in height and that is the frame you need to ride. You can check with Specialized Joe to see if a size 64cm Roubaix is available.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

In my experience, hand numbness is usually caused by the saddle being too far forward... try moving it back a bit.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

headloss said:


> In my experience, hand numbness is usually caused by the saddle being too far forward... try moving it back a bit.


i agree with this ^^^^^


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

headloss said:


> In my experience, hand numbness is usually caused by the saddle being too far forward... try moving it back a bit.


Moving the saddle back which agreed is directionally correct is only within the context of being on the right size frame. A 64cm has a more slack seat tube angle which further moves the saddle rearward relative to BB centerline moving weight rearward and taking pressure off the hands. At 6'1" I can ride a 61cm because I am at the limit of stem length from my height with my arm length on a 58. No way the OP is going to get a 'recreational fit' with higher handlebar on a 61 as the picture shows.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Moving the saddle back which agreed is directionally correct is only within the context of being on the right size frame. A 64cm has a more slack seat tube angle which further moves the saddle rearward relative to BB centerline moving weight rearward and taking pressure off the hands. At 6'1" I can ride a 61cm because I am at the limit of stem length from my height with my arm length on a 58. No way the OP is going to get a 'recreational fit' with higher handlebar on a 61 as the picture shows.


I'm 6'4" and rock the 64cm Roubaix with no hand numbness discomfort, etc... . First damn road bike that has actually fit me in decades. :thumbsup: I tried the 61cm for a test spin and it felt way too small and cramped for me.:mad2:

Pretty tall head tube on the 64cm (260mm) and I don't understand why Specialized didn't make many (if any) this year compared to 2013. 

https://flic.kr/p/ngKpcG https://www.flickr.com/people//


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> I'm 6'4" and rock the 64cm Roubaix with no hand numbness discomfort, etc... . First damn road bike that has actually fit me in decades. :thumbsup: I tried the 61cm for a test spin and it felt way too small and cramped for me.:mad2:
> 
> Pretty tall head tube on the 64cm (260mm) and I don't understand why Specialized didn't make many (if any) this year compared to 2013.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/ngKpcG https://www.flickr.com/people//


Reason more aren't available is demographics. Only 1% of the population is 6'4" or taller. If more rode in the position you show...which is generally referred to as a French Fit which btw is the position I also ride, there would be a lot happier road bike community. Basically what Specialized did when they invented the endurance genre of road bikes is create a carbon fiber race worthy bike with a riding position espoused by Grant Peterson of Rivendell for many years. The problem for statistically taller riders is exactly what you write. Many never have access to a proper fit and I have no doubt that is why the lbs put the 6'6" tall OP on a 61cm which I could comfortably ride at 6'1".


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Reason more aren't available is demographics. Only 1% of the population is 6'4" or taller. If more rode in the position you show...which is generally referred to as a French Fit which btw is the position I also ride, there would be a lot happier road bike community. Basically what Specialized did when they invented the endurance genre of road bikes is create a carbon fiber race worthy bike with a riding position espoused by Grant Peterson of Rivendell for many years. The problem for statistically taller riders is exactly what you write. Many never have access to a proper fit and I have no doubt that is why the lbs put the 6'6" tall OP on a 61cm which I could comfortably ride at 6'1".


Yes, that's what the fitter wanted to put me on last year (because they had it in stock). Even with a 120mm stem, the 61cm felt iddy biddy and too full of comprimises with plumbing to make it work as well as I wanted it to work. I'm sure I could have jacked it all up, pushed the seat aft - and made it work (was doing that on an Allez for 6 years). But the 64cm frame fit like a glove right out of the box. 

Yup, demographics - yet, Specialized sold out of all 64cm in the 2013 size (I bought one of the last 2 available in the US). They made it in several models last year to handle the demographics and budgets of riders and all sold out, but I don't have any confirmation that it came in anything this year except maybe in only one of the high end Roubaix models. 

Entire thread on 63/64cm frames available here.

I will be in Walnut Creek on vacation in July and was planning on visiting Rivendell for kicks.

Yes, I enjoy the French Fit (and larger volume, supple gravel tires) since I ride on gravel quite a bit mixed with lots of pavement. Super comfortable "do all" bike for me. I just hope a version with the disc brakes in my size will be available when I need it. The disc brakes would help me out on the gravel and for the nasty winter riding around here with all the sand and salt they dump on the pavement. Nothing wrong with proper rim braking surface and pad maintenance, but disc brakes removes having to do all that wiping down and cleaning after every gravel or winter ride.

Anyway, the OP is pretty much set up riding with a French Fit as well, but his saddle jack with all of that seatpost and the spacers and high rise stem to get the front up seem like a lot of compromise to get a too small frame to work.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Yes, that's what the fitter wanted to put me on last year (because they had it in stock). Even with a 120mm stem, the 61cm felt iddy biddy and too full of comprimises with plumbing to make it work as well as I wanted it to work. I'm sure I could have jacked it all up, pushed the seat aft - and made it work (was doing that on an Allez for 6 years). But the 64cm frame fit like a glove right out of the box.
> 
> Yup, demographics - yet, Specialized sold out of all 64cm in the 2013 size (I bought one of the last 2 available in the US). They made it in several models last year to handle the demographics and budgets of riders and all sold out, but I don't have any confirmation that it came in anything this year except maybe in only one of the high end Roubaix models.
> 
> ...


In bold...actually he isn't. Premise of a French Fit that Grant didn't invent but espouses is a long top tube and high handlebar to preserve same level of reach saddle tip to handlebar center as an Eddy Fit only horizontal/vertical resultant vector length is higher. Where the 6'6" rider falls down on a 61 with a riser stem is not as much handlebar height....he could stand to bring it up another 1-2cm, but he is severely limited on horizontal reach...he rides with a shorter cockpit than I do at 6'1" and he is a much bigger guy. I refer to this position which basically is awful and pretty common with newbs....to be 'no man's zone'. When the handlebars are in close and can't rotate your pelvis and move your CG rearward and as a result have way too much weight on your hands...falling into the handlebar and can't get your glutes in the pedal stroke.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

Ah, got it. 

I thought _French Fit _was primarily when the bars are at about saddle height which the OP's looks to be. I guess the TT and HT length are what helps the French Fit allow riders to use the drops in a more natural way without back strain and craning of the neck. That's what I love about riding this 64cm bike compared to what I was on before that pretty much rendered the drops useless for me. So the tall HT and long TT help aid in letting me stretch out and not be cramped (was on a 58cm Allez before which gave me 6 years of frustration). In my case, I was simply going for the "what feels good" fit and that led me to the super HUGE Specialized bike frame.

I guess the OP's spacer stack and short/higer rise stem shortens the cockpit even more making him even more cramped. I know I could wheelie on his bike without too much effort with that jacked seatpost.:thumbsup: 

I did move my short 20mm spacer stack a few weeks ago above the stem for the summer to mimic and mirror as closely as possible the relationship to how my mountain bikes are set up for racing in terms of hands in the hoods position for reach and saddle to bar drop. I realize there are plenty of other factors involved between the endurance bike and a mountain bike fit/geometry, but even with my spacer stack above the stem, the saddle to bar drop is minimal and I guess still qualifies as French Fit for endurance riding (and my age/flexibility). I'll probably put the spacers back under the stem for the weekly tour called RAGBRAI as we cruise across Iowa in Zone 1 and Zone 2 for a week.

My do all training/riding bike... https://www.flickr.com/people//


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Ah, got it.
> 
> I thought _French Fit _was primarily when the bars are at about saddle height which the OP's looks to be. I guess the TT and HT length are what helps the French Fit allow riders to use the drops in a more natural way without back strain and craning of the neck. That's what I love about riding this 64cm bike compared to what I was on before that pretty much rendered the drops useless for me. So the tall HT and long TT help aid in letting me stretch out and not be cramped (was on a 58cm Allez before which gave me 6 years of frustration). In my case, I was simply going for the "what feels good" fit and that led me to the super HUGE Specialized bike frame.
> 
> ...


If there is a cardinal mistake in my experience, it is raising the handlebar but not increasing horizontal reach. If you go on Rivendell's site, they talk about the misconception of why larger frame sizes aren't better endorsed which they should be for non elite riders. Grant explains that raising the handlebar moves the handlebar closer to the shoulder joints effectively shortening reach and a longer top tube compensates for this. This is why a larger frame can actually have a shorter reach because bikes change more in headtube length than they do in horizontal reach. So choice of frame size is largely about weight distribution on the bike. Factor in seat tube angle's relationship with net reach and easy for an average guy to get lost in the numbers.

To me choice of fit and frame size is perhaps the single most misunderstood element of road cycling and many shy away from road riding because they can't get comfortable...largely because they are on the wrong frame size. I have no question this is the case with the OP.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> To me choice of fit and frame size is perhaps the single most misunderstood element of road cycling and many shy away from road riding because they can't get comfortable...largely because they are on the wrong frame size. I have no question this is the case with the OP.


I hear you. I'm a new believer having moved to a frame that for all practical purposes, seems to fit and beckons me to get on the bike and ride (after nearly dreading every road ride on the Allez I rode for 6 years that was too small).


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> I hear you. I'm a new believer having moved to a frame that for all practical purposes, seems to fit and beckons me to get on the bike and ride (after nearly dreading every road ride on the Allez I rode for 6 years that was too small).


Can't imagine a dude your size on a 58cm Allez with race geometry...especially coming from off road. What's funny about fit is everybody rides more slammed than I do on the road. But I can stay in the drops for miles and all my riding buddies on their pro drop bikes are whipped dogs late into a century when I am still feeling good.
Optimizing position and weight distribution on a road bike, while a difficult mistress to court, is well worth the effort. My favorite quip on the subject is I would say many quit cycling before they ever find their sweet spot on the bike.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

I would go with a revised handlebar taping strategy.

one of the things Paris-Roubaix techs do for their rider is doubling up on the tape.

Lizard Skins 3.2mm thick tape is quite comfy imo.

I have heard some people repurposing old tubes and using it as the first layer of "tape", then, then the 2nd layer using the tape of their choice.

other than that... I switch up my hand positions a lot

also, if you lock your arms straight (which i see a lot of people do), then that also puts a lot of pressure on your hands, exacerbated by road conditions. So, bend those elbows and your arm becomes a shock absorber also.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

tednugent said:


> I would go with a revised handlebar taping strategy.
> 
> one of the things Paris-Roubaix techs do for their rider is doubling up on the tape.
> 
> ...


A few pros do double wrap bars and yes popular on endurance cobble style races but my personal view is as a guy who rides with a single wrap, no amount of bar tape will compensate for two much weight on your hands based upon a poor fit.

Also locked arms are many times symptomatic of a poor fit, i.e. bars too close to the saddle preventing proper forward pelvis rotation and balanced CG without using your arms as props to hold up the torso.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Can't imagine a dude your size on a 58cm Allez with race geometry...especially coming from off road. What's funny about fit is everybody rides more slammed than I do on the road. But I can stay in the drops for miles and all my riding buddies on their pro drop bikes are whipped dogs late into a century when I am still feeling good.


Same shop that finally sold me the 64cm Roubaix last year after I had them track me down one of the final 2 available somewhere in US, sold me the Allez back in 2006/7 and confirmed at the time it was the "right size" for me.

I rode it with the jacked seat, serious shimmy up front if I took my hands off the bars, and I experimented with all kinds of stems to locate the bars somewhere that I could last on it for a few hours.

https://flic.kr/p/c8yFSm https://www.flickr.com/people//

Now I know what I was missing all these years aboard the big Roubaix.

My son, who is 6'1", rides the Allez now with 120mm stem and seems to like it. But, as you mention, perhaps he should revisit his bike fit. He has short legs (32" inseam) and a long trunk/arms which may or may not play into why the 58cm seems to fit him. Plus, he is super flexible.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Same shop that finally sold me the 64cm Roubaix last year after I had them track me down one of the final 2 available somewhere in US, sold me the Allez back in 2006/7 and confirmed at the time it was the "right size" for me.
> 
> I rode it with the jacked seat, serious shimmy up front if I took my hands off the bars, and I experimented with all kinds of stems to locate the bars somewhere that I could last on it for a few hours.
> 
> ...


Flexibility is sure a good thing for cycling and wish I had more...but I am old. 
I too have long arms like your son and ride with a 130mm stem on my Roubaix...so since he has a long torso and arms, maybe worth a try for him as well.

As it turns out I could comfortably ride a 61cm Roubaix which at my size would fit very similarly to a 64cm relative to your body size. At 130mm, I am near the end of the stem length size on my 58cm.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

roadworthy said:


> Also locked arms are many times symptomatic of a poor fit, i.e. bars too close to the saddle preventing proper forward pelvis rotation and balanced CG without using your arms as props to hold up the torso.


Not necessarily. Some people just have poor form, whether they realize it or not.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

tednugent said:


> Not necessarily. Some people just have poor form, whether they realize it or not.


Actually, many have poor form on a road bike. I see it all the time on the road. But the reality is poor fit on the bike is many times the root cause of poor form. You can't achieve correct posture on a road bike for example if the cockpit is too short. Some don't know that many pro's ride with a full 2 inches more from saddle tip to handlebar center distance for given rider size compared to the average amateur. No we aren't pros, nor do most of us have their flexibility or their strength. But with insufficient cockpit length, you can't rotate your pelvis and straighten the lumber or cervical sections of the back or get CG properly oriented for low pressure on the hands and why many need to hold their anatomy up with the skeleton aka straight arms versus musculature. The 6'6" guy on the 61cm Roubaix with 90mm stem is a notable example. He wants more comfort. Of course he does because he is falling into the handlebar as it is much too close and he can't possibly rotate his pelvis and derive the reach he needs for good posture.

Here is a notable example. Below is a contrast that shows how fit affects riding position on the bike.
First rider is what I would characterize as having pretty flawless form on the bike. Note back angle is medium aggressive but handlebar is just fractionally below saddle height if that. He has very little weight on the hands. Many don't know that a pretty aggressive back angle can be achieved with a French fit provided the cockpit length is there...say for a given rider size the horizontal reach a few mm's short of what pro's ride...but much less drop.

Next is a very tall guy on a 61 Roubaix. He can never derive a good position on that bike. He is in no man's land. He is destined to have too much weight on the handlebars and he can not rotate his pelvis properly and derive good back posture and move his CG rearward to unweight his hands because his reach is much too short. This is a very common position for many on the road. They basically never learn to ride properly which for many cyclists takes a lot of practice. Fit on a road bike is a work in progress and even pros tweak their fit over time. But until the tall rider shown changes his fit on the bike, he will have no chance to have proper form or comfort.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> If you go on Rivendell's site, they talk about the misconception of why larger frame sizes aren't better endorsed which they should be for non elite riders. Grant explains that raising the handlebar moves the handlebar closer to the shoulder joints effectively shortening reach and a longer top tube compensates for this.


That was a really good read. Using pubic bone height and my preferred saddle height, I guess I now know why at 6'4" the 64cm Roubaix felt so good out of the box for me as in the Rivendell Chart I am right in the middle of the circled sizing.

RivendellChart https://www.flickr.com/people//


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> That was a really good read. Using pubic bone height and my preferred saddle height, I guess I now know why at 6'4" the 64cm Roubaix felt so good out of the box for me as in the Rivendell Chart I am right in the middle of the circled sizing.
> 
> RivendellChart https://www.flickr.com/people//


It really is a great read. No doubt an epiphany when you got off your 58 Allez and finally got on the right size bike for your big body. Like coming home. 
Cheers Bruce.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> It really is a great read. No doubt an epiphany when you got off your 58 Allez and finally got on the right size bike for your big body. Like coming home.
> Cheers Bruce.


Yes!

Since I've already hijacked the OP's thread, but the subject remains pertinent to tall drinks of water riding bikes (well actually every size when it comes to fit)...

I would be curious as to your thoughts on off road bike fit in terms of reach and cockpit length. I assume that much of the same applies, correct? 

Quite a few years now where the mountain bike "industry" _trend_ has everyone pounding the table for super wide handlebars and super short stems on a mountain bike. I've never, ever understood that because all that does is shorten the cockpit for me and put me in what you call "no man's land". People just pipe off and say "hey, you should get a 50mm or 70mm stem as it makes all the difference". And I think "50mm? Are you crazy?" 

I have just always chalked the _trend_ up to being led by shorter riders who have no idea what those of us 6'3" and up have to do to fit on a bike (long stems, huge frames, etc...). So I see a lot of the same in mountain biking that you see in road biking. Guys riding frames that are too small and riding with short cockpits - then complaining about the numb hands.

I am much more comfortable with a flipped negative 15 degree 130mm stem on my size XL RIP... 

https://flic.kr/p/nEaurH https://www.flickr.com/people//

And a flipped negative 6 degree 120mm stem on my JET...

https://flic.kr/p/nzdRKn https://www.flickr.com/people//

You can imagine how many comments I get with regard to the long stems and yet - I never feel stretched out at all. If anything, I ride with a rather upright position compared to others I see. 

https://flic.kr/p/fsmgGn https://www.flickr.com/people//

https://flic.kr/p/cDKWPC https://www.flickr.com/people//

Anyway, I've ignored the "trend" of wide and short because the long stems work for me and I'm not having any troubles with cornering, climbing, or leverage because of it. Sorry for the thread hijack, but just wanted to know thoughts on if the same fit issues apply for off road set ups as it does for road.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Yes!
> 
> Since I've already hijacked the OP's thread, but the subject remains pertinent to tall drinks of water riding bikes (well actually every size when it comes to fit)...
> 
> ...


Bruce as it turns out, I know you a bit from the off road racing scene and want to say I really appreciate all your excellent posts. I am more of a roadie but have dabbled with tearing up some single track...and my body  and you have given me great advice over the years as you have many on the mtb forum.

As to delving into the dark chasm also known as road bike bike fit , as we have talked, I believe you are on the right size bike and would say many who ride and race aren't. We could have a whole philosophical discussion why and why I believe a French fit works best for most but perhaps elite amateur racers with higher pedal forces who aren't riding balls out every minute but suffice to say my mantra is simply, 'Reach must be served'. So what does that mean? What that means is if you take a pro with a given body and torso length and arm length, you will come up with a metric often posted for a given pro which is saddle tip to handlebar center. For pros for example, this is surprisingly uniform as scaled against body size.
For the great but beleaguered Lance Armstrong who for a champion cyclist btw rides closer to a French fit than just about any modern cyclist and hard to fault his track record other than the obvious, at 5'10" his saddle tip to handlebar center is 575mm.
As it turns out, I like to ride like Lance's position because I believe it to be the best for a recreational rider in particular...which is horizontally stretched out but with little drop. I could get into reasons for this but then this turns into too much theory.

There are two vectors that comprise reach as it turns out and you know this...horizontal reach and handlebar drop. These metrics are for example why frame stack and reach metrics are so popular for figuring out frame size. But it is the ratio of these...x^2 + y^2 = Z^2 that provide the all important resultant reach Z from saddle tip to handlebar center that matters. For pros, this vector magnitude is relevant to amateurs because 'Reach must be served' for a given body size. But most pros will ride with a lower Z angle from saddle tip to handlebar center. And this is usually accomplished with a shorter top tube and shorter head tube. Based upon mapping pro fits...something I am interested in...the physiology of riding mechanics, I would say on average a pro rides with 25-50mm more reach than a run of the mill amateur for the same body size.

So lets get to you. Best guy to crib off of for you relative to reach is Tom Boonen. He too is 6'4". Of course he rides a 60cm bike...his bikes are custom made with shorter head tube and longer top tube from Specialized, but his saddle tip to handlebar center is something you should consider and perhaps substract off 10-20mm or so. You may find this will put you on a longer stem for your given handlebar height which is closer to your shoulders than what the Terrific Tom rides.

Throw a measure on your Roubaix and come back and let us know what your saddle tip to handlebar center measures.
HTH.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

msg98 said:


> can you pls. advise how to make the front-end more comfortable. the main pain-point for me when riding is my hands going numb and uncomfortable.


In the last few years, it seems like I need more padding. And, I'm also still experimenting. Good gloves help a bit, but I'd prefer not using them in the summer.

I did notice that I tend to pull up when riding in the drop part of the handlebars, and push down when riding on the upper part, so it may be more comfortable to use the drops.

There are a few brands of "winged" handlebars. See this thread, and they appear as if they may be more comfortable when riding on the top. Not all are fiber, there are aluminum bars too. I've got one, but not installed. It did require a new handlebar stem.

Another thing I've been experimenting with is handlebar foam. I got some foam off of E-Bay, but it mashed down too easily, and wore out in a matter of days. My next experiment is some foam that I pulled off from some exercise equipment that seems to be stiffer and more durable. Hopefully I'll get it fitted this afternoon.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Throw a measure on your Roubaix and come back and let us know what your saddle tip to handlebar center measures.
> HTH.


Rider's height: 192cm
Rider's weight: 75.29kg (166 lb)
Saddle height, from BB (c-t): 787.4
Saddle setback: ??
Seat tube length, c-t: 600mm
Seat tube length, c-c: 787.4mm
Tip of saddle nose to C of bars (next to stem): 584.2mm 
Saddle-to-bar drop (vertical): 6.5mm
Head tube length: 260mm
Top tube length: 615mm (horizontal)


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

Ok,
I just installed my Blackbird Wings (aluminum).

I decided to try them out without taping them up, and no padding. I thought they were much more comfortable than my classic round bars.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

BruceBrown said:


> Rider's height: 192cm
> Rider's weight: 75.29kg (166 lb)
> Saddle height, from BB (c-t): 787.4
> Saddle setback: ??
> ...



Now I'm tempted, since I'm taller, heavier , and on a (theoretically) smaller non-Roubaix


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

expatbrit said:


> Now I'm tempted, since I'm taller, heavier , and on a (theoretically) smaller non-Roubaix


You can play too expatbrit if you want. Post your metrics and bike size.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Rider's height: 192cm
> Rider's weight: 75.29kg (166 lb)
> Saddle height, from BB (c-t): 787.4
> Saddle setback: ??
> ...


As I expected, your saddle tip to handlebar center is _way_ short for a strong rider with your body size. This is very common btw. For perspective, at 6'4" you ride with less than a 10mm longer cockpit or less than 1/2" than Lance who you dwarf at 5'10". Putting me in the mix at 6'1", I ride with a saddle tip to handlebar center of 595mm or 10mm longer than you and you a fair amount bigger.

First let's address saddle setback which is one if not thee most important factors. Forget KOPS. Its bogus. I can direct you an article or two that identifies why but will share my experience. If you want weight off your hands...and most do on a road bike with handlebar below the saddle, then you need to move the saddle back. Even though Tom Boonen reports 100mm for his setback, I know for fact he has run up to about 115mm at times depending on conditions including the Schleck brothers who are my size. Tom like you has long legs and a long body and proper setback gets his CG back and he can really get his power (glutes) into his pedal stroke with that much setback. As another data point, I am mostly legs with 35.25" cycling inseam i.e. PB to ground and I ride with 102mm setback.

My personal view therefore is you may want to rethink your position on the bike.

First thing you want to do is measure your setback. The way to do that is, place the bike on a level surface...use a carpenter level to determine a flat surface...and drop a plumb line off the front of the saddle, mark the frame with tape and measure the horizontal distance to BB centerline. My guess with your short cockpit with 615mm top tube and relatively short stem is you aren't running much setback. I personally would start with 100mm min. as your target. When you do that, you will have to lower your saddle of course because pushing the saddle back on its rails increases its distance to the BB and you want to preserve your saddle height dimension from where you sit on top of the saddle to BB centerline. OK, with 100mm setback, my next suggestion is...minimum set your saddle tip to handlebar center at 610mm. You will need a longer stem. Again, there are many pros in the peloton my size like Cancellara at 6'1" who ride with 100mm of setback and 625mm saddle tip to handlebar center...but we aren't pros. In my experience running as much or a hint more setback because of reduced pedal forces and slightly higher handlebar therefore not needing quite the pelvis rotation and a hint shorter reach is perfect for a good amateur. 

In my opinion....will learn more when you measure your setback, you are in for a 'transformation' when you dial your cockpit, i.e. center your weight and provide the reach to decrease your arm angle to the handlebar which will also improve your aero profile and take pressure off you hands and more power into the pedal stroke. A longer cockpit will also promote better posture because you will naturally need to rotate your pelvis more which will move your CG back for comfortable reach to the handlebars.

If you have say a 25mm setback post which is pretty standard if you have Spesh seatpost, then you should be able to achieve 100mm setback relatively easily. In fact, you maybe close now because of the shallow sta of your 64cm of 72 deg and you tall saddle height. If you are at 80-90mm right now, you may want to try 105mm setback or so. Pick up or borrow a longer stem, focus on rotating your pelvis properly and good posture on the bike and you will be in a new zone.

Let me know how it goes....only the price of a stem and maybe your bike shop will lend you one to try.

A last note is, my view on fit is, unless you try every permutation of fit, you haven't arrived at your optimal position on the bike. I have. Yes, it is a huge effort but the difference of the right fit for "you" is night and day and for guys like us that like to spend a lot of time on a bike, well worth the investment.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

CliffordK said:


> Ok,
> I just installed my Blackbird Wings (aluminum).
> 
> I decided to try them out without taping them up, and no padding. I thought they were much more comfortable than my classic round bars.


I too find a flattish winged bar more comfortable.... I like the FSA K-wing carbon bar personally. A word of advice in your search. Fit on the bike...proper saddle setback and reach to the handlebar>>>>>>>>>any bandaid in padding, gloves etc. Most run insufficient setback and not enough reach to the handlebar to take weight of your hands. The reason so many get fit wrong, is because if you don't study it in depth, it is largely counterintuitive.
Good luck in your search.


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> As I expected, your saddle tip to handlebar center is _way_ short for a strong rider with your body size. This is very common btw. For perspective, at 6'4" you ride with less than a 10mm longer cockpit or less than 1/2" than Lance who you dwarf at 5'10". Putting me in the mix at 6'1", I ride with a saddle tip to handlebar center of 595mm or 10mm longer than you and you a fair amount bigger.
> 
> First let's address saddle setback which is one if not thee most important factors. Forget KOPS. Its bogus. I can direct you an article or two that identifies why but will share my experience. If you want weight off your hands...and most do on a road bike with handlebar below the saddle, then you need to move the saddle back. Even though Tom Boonen reports 100mm for his setback, I know for fact he has run up to about 115mm at times depending on conditions including the Schleck brothers who are my size. Tom like you has long legs and a long body and proper setback gets his CG back and he can really get his power (glutes) into his pedal stroke with that much setback. As another data point, I am mostly legs with 35.25" cycling inseam i.e. PB to ground and I ride with 102mm setback.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your help, Roadworthy!

OK. So operation "let it out" was pretty easy to do since I did ride the bike like this all of last year. It came with a 120mm stem which I had swapped out for a shorter one at the end of July which I had in the parts bin. I had pushed my seat forward a little bit this Spring after being in the basement all winter on my exercise bike, but now that flexibility has returned - it feels fine to stretch out. Like a big couch! 

So here's the bike now with a 120mm stem flipped negative, seat post back.

Now, the setback measures 117mm; tip of saddle nose to C of bars (next to stem): 622.3mm 

I did not have to lower the saddle (yet), as I'm still in good position with the adjustments.

https://flic.kr/p/nFjRwf https://www.flickr.com/people//

Here I am on the bike to use a reference for the above starting point with the longer stem and seat back quite a bit...

https://flic.kr/p/nVNfKQ https://www.flickr.com/people//

https://flic.kr/p/nXJRQy https://www.flickr.com/people//

It's a very upright posture for sure at that setting! That's all with the spacers below the stem. I just put the spacers on top of the stem to drop the bars 20mm and it feels a lot better to me.

https://flic.kr/p/nFnevJ https://www.flickr.com/people//

Just changing the spacers to above the stem lenghtens the cockpit to tip of saddle nose to C of bars (next to stem): 635mm - seems to be as long as I can get it and feels good without getting a new stem that is 130mm in length. I should get some profile pix of me sitting on the bike with it set up like the last picture.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

Well...
I'm not even remotely on a Roubaix.  But here goes with some roughish numbers. 56cm frame.

Rider Height -- 200mm
Weight -- 86kg
Saddle Height (BB C to Saddle Top) -- 795mm
Setback -- 70mm
Seat Tube (from bike geo chart, c-t) - 60cm
Tip of Saddle to c-bars at stem -- 590mm (this one might be a little low; hard to measure)
Saddle to bar drop -- 100mm
Head-tube -- 185mm
Top Tube -- 560mm


----------



## BruceBrown (Mar 20, 2011)

expatbrit said:


> Now I'm tempted, since I'm taller, heavier , and on a (theoretically) smaller non-Roubaix


Based on Roadworthy's excellent advice, here's the latest set up I am trying which feels really good. 120mm stem flipped negative, seat aft so the c-c measurement from center of bars to saddle nose tip is 25" or 635mm. Setback is 117mm.

https://flic.kr/p/nHZdPu https://www.flickr.com/people//

It feels so good since it starts to really drop me out of the 'no man's land' that he mentions above. I may want to try a 130mm from the LBS just to explore that possibility. If it's too long, then the 120mm it is, but I think I need to at least explore it as that would put my c-c at 644mm with the French Fit.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

roadworthy said:


> You can play too expatbrit if you want. Post your metrics and bike size.


Huh.

I was sure I'd posted this earlier, but apparently I'm a space cadet.

So. I'm on a 56cm bike. (Cue groans). However, it's not your usual 56, even more so than the usual range. It's also not a Roubaix. 

Here's the numbers:

Rider Height: 200cm
Rider Weight: 86kg
Saddle Height (From BB, C-T) -- 795mm
Setback (best as I can measure) -- 70mm
Seat-tube length (from geo chart, c-t) -- 600mm
Tip of saddle to center of bars -- 590mm
Saddle to bar drop: 100mm
Head tube (from bike geo): 185mm
Top Tube (from bike geo): 560mm

I'll add, for comparison to other frames:
Reach: 389mm
Stack: 594mm

I've a 130mm stem on it, and honestly it's fairly comfy. I'm built bizarrely, with short legs (and short femurs for my leg length) and really long arms.

(Note that a 61cm Roubaix has 398mm of reach and 643cm of stack -- the reverse of what I actually want/need; a 61cm Tarmac runs 408mm of reach and 612mm of stack, but comes stock with a 110mm stem)


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

BruceBrown said:


> OK. So operation "let it out" was pretty easy to do since I did ride the bike like this all of last year. It came with a 120mm stem which I had swapped out for a shorter one at the end of July which I had in the parts bin. I had pushed my seat forward a little bit this Spring after being in the basement all winter on my exercise bike, but now that flexibility has returned - it feels fine to stretch out. Like a big couch!


It looks like you need some combination of longer stem and more saddle setback. FSA makes the K-Force Light in 32mm of setback. I only run about 3cm of drop on my 54cm Roubaix and I can rotate my hips forward get my back much flatter/lower than in your picture.


----------

