# Riding in the hoods - does handlebar reach matter?



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

My current handlebar is 440mm wide, 140mm drop, and 104mm reach. If I ride exclusively in the hoods or tops, does reach matter?

I'm looking at a new bar that is also 440mm wide, but 79mm reach and 127mm drop. My fit is good as is, but I want a carbon bar and the one I'm looking at has these slightly different measurements. Does that reach figure only matter for riding in the drops?


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

thisisthebeave said:


> My current handlebar is 440mm wide, 140mm drop, and 104mm reach. If I ride exclusively in the hoods or tops, does reach matter?
> 
> I'm looking at a new bar that is also 440mm wide, but 79mm reach and 127mm drop. My fit is good as is, but I want a carbon bar and the one I'm looking at has these slightly different measurements. Does that reach figure only matter for riding in the drops?


A bar with 25mm less reach (the one your thinking of buying) will affect distance from saddle riding in the drops and while on the hoods but, not on the tops. This assumes one places the shifters in the same position.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Longer or shorter reach puts your brifters at a different distance from your body assuming all else stays constant. Yes it "matters", how much depends on you. Since you're going to a bar setup that is more compact everything (hoods/brakes levers/hooks/flats) is going to be closer.

When looking at reach, factor in what method the bar maker uses to calculate reach as not everyone does it the same way.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Look at where the brake levers are attached to the bars, and it is immediately obvious that changing the reach dimension of the drop bar will change the position of the hoods (not so for the drop measurement). The bar you're looking at, assuming it's otherwise similar in shape, will put the hoods closer to you.

And one more point: if you want to be a strong and versatile rider, you shouldn't be "exclusively" on the tops or hoods. Even if you don't use the drops often, there are situations where they provide great advantage, and you should be comfortable using them when necessary.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

woodys737 said:


> A bar with 25mm less reach (the one your thinking of buying) will affect distance from saddle riding in the drops and while on the hoods but, not on the tops. This assumes one places the shifters in the same position.


Thanks for the reply. I ride probably 95% hoods, 4% tops, 1% drops. I do not care at all about drop comfort and I ride the tops only to move around a bit from riding in the hoods.

In that case, I should try to find a bar with similar reach figures to my current one?


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

thisisthebeave said:


> My current handlebar is 440mm wide, 140mm drop, and 104mm reach. If I ride exclusively in the hoods or tops, does reach matter?
> 
> I'm looking at a new bar that is also 440mm wide, but 79mm reach and 127mm drop. My fit is good as is, but I want a carbon bar and the one I'm looking at has these slightly different measurements. Does that reach figure only matter for riding in the drops?


Those are not slightly different measurements.

A whole inch difference is absolutely huge in terms of bike fitment. I would call those drastically different fitting bars. Not only the reach but also the drops and I'm guessing the shape as well.

104mm reach on bars is not very typical now a days. The 3T Aeronova has something right about that though. Most you'll find now are much closer to the 80mm mark.

The new bars would put the hoods an inch closer to you so they would not fit you. Getting a stem an inch longer isn't the answer either. In my opinion the answer is getting a set of bars with the same or very close measurements to what you have.

You'd be surprised how changing the shape or width or reach just a little totally changes the feel of everything. There's many sizes and shapes I refuse to ride.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

thisisthebeave said:


> In that case, I should try to find a bar with similar reach figures to my current one?


Um, that would depend if you want similar reach. For the life of me I can't wrap my head around someone asking it reach matters.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

thisisthebeave said:


> If I ride exclusively in the hoods or tops, does reach matter?


Yes. Reach is essentially the extension of your stem length. How far from the stem clamp to the front of the bars where the shifters mount.



thisisthebeave said:


> Does that reach figure only matter for riding in the drops?


No. It matters for the hoods and for the drops. It will effect you drastically.




thisisthebeave said:


> My fit is good as is, but I want a carbon bar


If your fit is good as is you need to keep it where it's at. It's the most important thing.



thisisthebeave said:


> Thanks for the reply. I ride probably 95% hoods, 4% tops, 1% drops. I do not care at all about drop comfort and I ride the tops only to move around a bit from riding in the hoods.
> 
> In that case, I should try to find a bar with similar reach figures to my current one?


Yes.
Carbon Fiber Handlebar Roadbike Internal Cable Routing Cycling Dropbar | eBay

Buy something like the above China crap at your own risk.
If you have the cash buy a 3T Aeronova which is the real deal of what the above is a fake of.

Or just try to find some other bar with 104mm reach. I don't know of any off hand.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

MMsRepBike said:


> Yes. Reach is essentially the extension of your stem length. How far from the stem clamp to the front of the bars where the shifters mount.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem with trying to buy the "real thing"...you can find fakes in retail packaging at B&M and legit online retail stores. And the fakes are good enough to fool most anyone not going over every individual box with a forensic eye.


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

Or, since you don't ride the tops much, buy the shorter reach bars and a longer stem. You will have to get a smaller angle if you use your stem angling up, or a larger angle if flipped, to keep the stack the same.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

MMsRepBike said:


> Those are not slightly different measurements.
> 
> A whole inch difference is absolutely huge in terms of bike fitment. I would call those drastically different fitting bars. Not only the reach but also the drops and I'm guessing the shape as well.
> 
> ...


My bike is a 2015 Emonda SL8 so I'm kind of surprised it comes with an odd shape.

When I originally made the thread I was reading the wrong line on the handlebar specs so it was like 85mm vs 79mm, hence the "small difference" line, forgot to edit that part.

The 3T Aeronova is one of the ones I'm considering... is 3T a reputable (like Enve, Zipp, etc) carbon brand and would that look stupid on a non-aero frame?


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Um, that would depend if you want similar reach. For the life of me I can't wrap my head around someone asking it reach matters.


Because if reach only affects placement in the drops, it doesn't matter to ME. I didn't know until posting this thread that it affected hood placement. Obviously reach matters, but depending on how it is measured and where you ride, it has the potential to not matter. It was just wishful thinking on my part that an otherwise perfect bar might work for me.



MikeWMass said:


> Or, since you don't ride the tops much, buy the shorter reach bars and a longer stem. You will have to get a smaller angle if you use your stem angling up, or a larger angle if flipped, to keep the stack the same.


I'm already on a 120mm stem, have read that 130-140 can screw with handling


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

thisisthebeave said:


> . Does that reach figure only matter for riding in the drops?



For me it matters maybe more than for most? With long femurs I prefer short reach bars and a longer stem. I have knee-ed bar tops on out of the saddle jumps before I figured it out.

Also when I went from 9 speed Dura Ace STIs to 10 Speed the STI for 7800 were longer and reach on the bar came into play for me. I just put on a shorter stem initially, but again found I'd rather use shorter reach bars with the longer stem so changed both.

So as far as in the drops, maybe ?? More so possibly if an ergo drop maybe?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

You might end up riding in the drops more often.


----------



## AlanE (Jan 22, 2002)

I thought this thread was going to be about riding through the black part of town and wondered wtf handlebar reach had to do with it. I realized you really meant riding ON the hoods. 

Urban Dictionary: the hood


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

thisisthebeave said:


> 130-140 can screw with handling


Some brainwork for you:
120 mm stem + 90 mm bar reach equals
140 mm stem + 70 mm bar reach.
Your hands (on the tops) will be in the same point in space. Handling will be the same.

If you change to a compact bar like the 3T Ergonova you'll be able to use the drops more. The idea behind drop bars is to offer multiple hand positions after all.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

kbwh said:


> 120 mm stem + 90 mm bar reach equals
> 140 mm stem + 70 mm bar reach.
> Your hands (on the tops) will be in the same point in space. Handling will be the same.


The riders hands when on the hoods will be the same. With the longer stem and shorter reach, the reach to the bar tops will be longer.

Bars with less drop may make the drops more useful. Only using the drops 4% of the time indicates that the bike fit could be better.

There's other factors to bar fit than just reach and drop. I find that the shape of the drops makes a big difference, especially to comfort while on the hoods.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

thisisthebeave said:


> *Because if reach only affects placement in the drops, it doesn't matter to ME. * I didn't know until posting this thread that it affected hood placement. Obviously reach matters, but depending on how it is measured and where you ride, it has the potential to not matter. It was just wishful thinking on my part that an otherwise perfect bar might work for me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm already on a 120mm stem, have read that 130-140 can screw with handling


I see. The issue here is you're mistaken on what reach means. Google "handlebar reach" and you should have no problem finding a diagram and I think then it'll be clear why reach matters.

Here's one such example showing what reach means in this context: EB13: Refined Zipp Service Course SL Handlebars Move Hoods Closer, Higher - Bikerumor


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

kbwh said:


> Some brainwork for you:
> 120 mm stem + 90 mm bar reach equals
> 140 mm stem + 70 mm bar reach.
> Your hands (on the tops) will be in the same point in space. Handling will be the same.


My brain can't understand how the top of the bar will be in the same point in space if the distance to it from the steerer tube is different. I think you meant to say on the hoods. Because the reach to the bar will most certainly not be the same. I recently purchased Easton's EC90SL3 bar which has a shorter reach than my previous bar by about a cm (70 or 74, can't remember). I also went up a stem size. I am now much more comfortable on the bar top, and the shorter reach ensured the reach to the hoods remained the same (with minor positioning tweaks)

Also, I believe handling will not be the same. Steering inputs pivot around a diameter that is directly related to the length of the stem, not overall reach and therefore it's the distance from the steerer to the bar that matters and not the overall ditance to the hoods. The idea behind ZIPP's Service Course SL short reach bars (which replaced the still sought after [SSR]SuperShortReach model) was to allow bike fitters to put clients who needed an overall shorter reach on stems which would not compromise handling characteristics (read: longest possible stem given constraints). The idea here is to not shorten stem length beyond what was intended as not to alter handling characteristics.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

thisisthebeave said:


> My bike is a 2015 Emonda SL8 so I'm kind of surprised it comes with an odd shape.
> 
> When I originally made the thread I was reading the wrong line on the handlebar specs so it was like 85mm vs 79mm, hence the "small difference" line, forgot to edit that part.
> 
> The 3T Aeronova is one of the ones I'm considering... is 3T a reputable (like Enve, Zipp, etc) carbon brand and would that look stupid on a non-aero frame?


Are you sure you're not reading the info wrong now? 104 doesn't sound right for reach given the year/model of your bike, if it's the stock bar. Can you post link to the specs?


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

If stock, per Trek, it's a Bontrager Race Lite, VR. Very little specs on website, but according to weighweenies around a 85cm reach.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

9W9W said:


> If stock, per Trek, it's a Bontrager Race Lite, VR. Very little specs on website, but according to weighweenies around a 85cm reach.


85 centimeters? That's some weird bar shape. I think you mean 85mm.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

JCavilia said:


> 85 centimeters? That's some weird bar shape. I think you mean 85mm.


Actually, to snatch victory away from you, my "." key was stuck and I missed a period between the eight and five.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Sounds like the real winner is the keyboard. Was it getting back at you for spilling coffee on it?


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

work pc, nothing nearly as exciting. wireless keyboard sometimes starts missing strokes during periods of high processor usage.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

9W9W said:


> If stock, per Trek, it's a Bontrager Race Lite, VR. Very little specs on website, but according to weighweenies around a 85cm reach.


All of the specs are available on the website... kind of hidden but they're there.

Click "weight & specs" under the price

Race Lite VR
440mm width
140mm drop
104mm reach


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Could be a typo on Trek's part, what does it actually say on your bar? I think for Bontrager bar it should say near the middle somewhere, where stem connects... I'd double-check on the bar itself, b/c most places on web seem to indicate 85 mm reach for that model...


----------



## rm -rf (Feb 27, 2006)

9W9W said:


> My brain can't understand how the top of the bar will be in the same point in space if the distance to it from the steerer tube is different. I think you meant to say on the hoods. Because the reach to the bar will most certainly not be the same. I recently purchased Easton's EC90SL3 bar which has a shorter reach than my previous bar by about a cm (70 or 74, can't remember). I also went up a stem size. I am now much more comfortable on the bar top, and the shorter reach ensured the reach to the hoods remained the same (with minor positioning tweaks)
> 
> Also, I believe handling will not be the same. *Steering inputs *pivot around a diameter that is *directly related to the length of the stem, not overall reach* and therefore it's the distance from the steerer to the bar that matters and not the overall ditance to the hoods. The idea behind ZIPP's Service Course SL short reach bars (which replaced the still sought after [SSR]SuperShortReach model) was to allow bike fitters to put clients who needed an overall shorter reach on stems which would not compromise handling characteristics (read: longest possible stem given constraints). The idea here is to not shorten stem length beyond what was intended as not to alter handling characteristics.


I think that handling will be the same if the hoods are the same distance from the steerer tube. So a shorter stem and long reach bars would be very similar to a long stem and short reach bars. (But the drops would be located at a different distance, and short reach bars would likely have higher drops too). I'm mostly ignoring the tops position, since it's more for climbing or easy riding.

The popularity of short reach bars is partly due to the shallow drops. And it all looks better with a normal stem and short reach instead of a very short stem and long reach bars.


----------



## rm -rf (Feb 27, 2006)

*85mm vs 104 mm reach*

If I had to guess, it seems that most bikes come with shorter reach now. The 104 mm seems unusual.

104 mm is about 4 1/8 inch.
85 mm is about 3 1/8.

So, if the bar doesn't have the reach printed on it, you can put your thumb on a ruler at 3 1/8 inch, and hold it up to the side of the bars. You should be able to see if it's close or is way short. Hard to measure exactly, but the inch difference is a lot.

It's often not exactly the center of the farthest point on the curve compared to the center of the stem clamp, but more of a theoretical horizontal orientation of the bars. And many riders rotate the bars upward from this.

An illustration from the Zipp link in the comment above. IF the left side bar was horizontal on top instead of at the bar ends, it would measure considerably longer.

It is interesting how the orientation of the bars can affect the hood reach distance, and that also depends on how sharp the curve is where the hoods attach.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

^Sorry for writing "tops" while meaning "hoods" in my previous post. I made a fine mess of it. Thanks for the corrections.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

rm -rf said:


> I think that handling will be the same if the hoods are the same distance from the steerer tube.


Yes. If your hands are in the same position the handling will be the same. It doesn't matter how your hands are in that position.



rm -rf said:


> So a shorter stem and long reach bars would be very similar to a long stem and short reach bars. (But the drops would be located at a different distance,


The drops will be the same distance from the rider as well. Only the tops will be different. They will be farther out with the long stem+short reach bars. The reach to the hoods and drops will be the same (or close, given that bar reach does not change in exact increments of 10mm, stem length is not exact, stems are often at a slight angle, etc etc).


I prefer short reach small drop bars. I set them up so my position in the drops is the same as with the larger reach and drop bars. My position on the hoods is lower, and on the tops is both lower and longer. So I'm a little bit more aero in those positions. The smaller reach and drop bars makes all three positions more similar.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

kbwh said:


> ^Sorry for writing "tops" while meaning "hoods" in my previous post. I made a fine mess of it. Thanks for the corrections.


thanks for giving me a chance to be an anal roadie. I now feel like part of the fam.


----------



## thisisthebeave (Aug 30, 2015)

rm -rf said:


> *85mm vs 104 mm reach*
> 
> If I had to guess, it seems that most bikes come with shorter reach now. The 104 mm seems unusual.
> 
> ...


Oh wow... just measured and it is about 85mm

The only print on the bar itself I can see is width and clamp diameter. Should it be printed somewhere underneath the stem?


----------



## namaSSte (Jul 28, 2004)

Apologies if I missed this but I don't see much mention of ramp in the discussion. I spend a fair amount of time on the hoods too (although its sounds like I utilize the drops and tops much more than you). In any case, I ride a compact bar by preference but find that even with a compact, the ramp is very important to feeling comfortable on the hoods. I prefer very little ramp so I have a very flat transition to the hoods. Obviously, others will prefer something different. Just be sure you factor that into the choice as well.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

9W9W said:


> Actually, to snatch victory away from you, my "." key was stuck and I missed a period between the eight and five.


This then prompts a question: Why would you express it as 8.5cm rather than 85mm like everyone else? (No need to answer). It's .085 metre by any name.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

^Drop shape matters, as do "flare".
I've tried three compact bars, with Campagnolo 3rd gen levers:
1. FSA. Very nice and shallow drop, with lots of space for wide hands. Nice flare, not too much, maybe 1 cm.
2. Deda (RHM): Roomy drops again. No flare. Almost as nice as the FSA.
3. 3T Ergonova: Very little space in the drops for wide hands, only one position there. 2 cm flare is too much in my opinion. But many riders like them.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

namaSSte said:


> Apologies if I missed this but I don't see much mention of ramp in the discussion. I spend a fair amount of time on the hoods too (although its sounds like I utilize the drops and tops much more than you). In any case, I ride a compact bar by preference but find that even with a compact, the ramp is very important to feeling comfortable on the hoods. I prefer very little ramp so I have a very flat transition to the hoods. Obviously, others will prefer something different. Just be sure you factor that into the choice as well.


 That, of course, is a function not just of bar shape, but of where you place the levers, and which levers they are. The interaction among bar shape, lever design and lever placement is complex, and if you're fussy you can spend a lot of time fiddling with it to get it feeling just right (NTTAWWT).


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

thisisthebeave said:


> Oh wow... just measured and it is about 85mm
> 
> The only print on the bar itself I can see is width and clamp diameter. Should it be printed somewhere underneath the stem?


In post of the pics I see of Trek's bars, the width/diameter is in a ring around the bar on one side of the stem, and the reach/drop are in the same place on the other side of the stem. Could it be under some bar tape or a sensor mount? Anyway, sounding like it's 85, so if you want to get that bar and have it go down to 79 it shouldn't be as drastic as you originally thought.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Nov 3, 2006)

Pulling this up from 2016! Some might comment "old thread!", but if I started a new one, then some would write "use the search button".

The OP had the exact same situation as me as far as wanting the hoods closer. But I have a couple of questions that are new:

1. Is getting bars with shorter reach different than getting a shorter stem? There's a triangle effect between your steer tube and your hand-placement on the hoods, and I'm not smart enough to figure out if 10mm closer hoods would speed up the steering as much as a 10mm shorter stem. (A shorter Uno 7 stem is only $25. But I already put a 10mm shorter stem on my Emonda, and if feels like it steers pretty quick. So thinking of bars that can get hoods closer to me in case it wouldn't quicken the steering so much.)

2. This bar was released after this thread stated. Zipp SL70 Speed Weoponry with only 70mm reach. https://www.zipp.com/bars/sl-70-ergo/#
Any thoughts or reviews? Wouldn't mind a little chatter-absorption too vs. my OEM Bontrager VR-C Elite aluminum bar that has 85mm reach. I read a previous review that was pretty favorable of the Zipp Contour SL SS, and this bar apparently replaces that one.

Again, if it quickens steering the same as a shorter stem, then I'll just get a shorter stem. I did try riding with my hands resting at the backs of the hoods, like 10 or 20mm back, in order to test what bars with shorter reach to the hoods might feel like. I didn't notice steering being faster. But I didn't like riding that way only because I couldn't reach the brake levers like that.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Are you track racing? I doubt it would make any difference that u could tell. If there was any difference, it is probably more due to change in wt balance than anything else.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Wheelspeed said:


> Pulling this up from 2016! Some might comment "old thread!", but if I started a new one, then some would write "use the search button".
> 
> The OP had the exact same situation as me as far as wanting the hoods closer. But I have a couple of questions that are new:
> 
> ...


1) Yes. There is a difference when you're riding on the tops. You could have a 100mm stem and a bar w/ 100mm reach, that would put you 200mm from the center of the steerer...OR you could have a bar w/ 80mm reach and a 120mm stem. Same 200mm when on the hoods, but a 20mm difference when on the tops. 
2) You'd probably notice more difference if you used thick bar tape. 

We've gone round and round about shorter/longer stems and the myth that they change the way a bike 'handles'. A shorter stem does NOT make a bike steer quicker. A longer stem does not make a bike more stable. A shorter stem will reduce the 'tiller' effect that you might notice w/ a long stem but the way a bike steers is determined by headtube angle and fork offset. The resulting trail measurement is the determining factor in how the bike handles. That's why you didn't notice the bike steer any faster. It couldn't unless you changed the headtube angle or the fork offset. 

(Flame suit on)


----------



## Wheelspeed (Nov 3, 2006)

cxwrench said:


> 1) Yes. There is a difference when you're riding on the tops. You could have a 100mm stem and a bar w/ 100mm reach, that would put you 200mm from the center of the steerer...OR you could have a bar w/ 80mm reach and a 120mm stem. Same 200mm when on the hoods, but a 20mm difference when on the tops.
> 2) You'd probably notice more difference if you used thick bar tape.
> 
> We've gone round and round about shorter/longer stems and the myth that they change the way a bike 'handles'. A shorter stem does NOT make a bike steer quicker. A longer stem does not make a bike more stable. A shorter stem will reduce the 'tiller' effect that you might notice w/ a long stem but the way a bike steers is determined by headtube angle and fork offset. The resulting trail measurement is the determining factor in how the bike handles. That's why you didn't notice the bike steer any faster. It couldn't unless you changed the headtube angle or the fork offset.
> ...


Why do people keep bringing up the tops? Neither I or the OP asked about tops. I'm asking about riding on the hoods. Anyone can add or subtract stem and reach lengths.

All else being constant, I feel like a shorter stem should make it steer faster. For a longer stem, any degree of steering will require the bars to sweep a bigger arc around the head tube axis. So it's easier to make smaller steering adjustments.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Wheelspeed said:


> Why do people keep bringing up the tops? Neither I or the OP asked about tops. I'm asking about riding on the hoods. Anyone can add or subtract stem and reach lengths.
> 
> All else being constant, I feel like a shorter stem should make it steer faster. For a longer stem, any degree of steering will require the bars to sweep a bigger arc around the head tube axis. So it's easier to make smaller steering adjustments.


The main thing you're missing is that you don't make a bicycle go around a turn soley by steering it w/ your hands on the bars. You initiate the turn w/ a slight push on the bars in the opposite direction you want to turn, the rest is controlled by lean. A bicycle isn't steered through a corner like a car w/ a steering wheel. It's a combination of lean angle, weigh distribution and pressure on the bars.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Wheelspeed said:


> All else being constant, I feel like a shorter stem should make it steer faster. For a longer stem, any degree of steering will require the bars to *sweep a bigger arc around the head tube axis*. So it's easier to make smaller steering adjustments.


Yes, CX is right. Rider "steers" mainly to keep the front wheel in line when adjusting direction. Still, a longer steering lever gives the bike a slightly cushier feel controlling the front wheel, not that rider uses it differently. 

And yes, 73-71 degree head tube angles and increased trail, and wheel base, not stem lengths, are the main determinants of steering, or maybe we should say cornering response, as CX points out.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Wheelspeed said:


> All else being constant,* I feel like a shorter stem should make it steer faster*. For a longer stem, any degree of steering will require the bars to sweep a bigger arc around the head tube axis. So it's easier to make smaller steering adjustments.


No it won't. Read this Wikipedia article on countersteer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Riding *in* the hoods ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Riding in the 'hood:


----------



## MaxKatt (May 30, 2015)

AlanE said:


> I thought this thread was going to be about riding through the black part of town and wondered wtf handlebar reach had to do with it. I realized you really meant riding ON the hoods.
> 
> Urban Dictionary: the hood




...And I saw this interpretation, and the Klan interpretation, but actually had been looking to post yet a third take on it. 


How big are these hoods???? How would one get in them?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

MaxKatt said:


> ...And I saw this interpretation, and the Klan interpretation, but actually had been looking to post yet a third take on it.
> 
> 
> How big are these hoods???? How would one get in them?


The 'hood in the picture below is Adams-Morgan, 2 miles up 16th St. from the White House in DC, extending west on the hill above DuPont Circle. Still a freewheeling 'hood with an international flavor, black, white, hispanic.

Rider might cruise on the tops, but would want to reach the hoods quickly.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Nov 3, 2006)

Sorry, that wiki article was unimpressive. I think it was a university student trying to make it sound good. It read like a bunch of technical terms he was defining one after another. And everything was "model" or "simplified". Like a bike simulating a turn on a perfect surface with no rider. I challenge you to initiate a turn on an actual downhill country road, and then let go of the bars "to let the bike balance carry the turn".
Rider continually makes steering input throughout the turn in real life. Quickness of that steering depends on the length of the lever used to twist the fork tube.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Wheelspeed said:


> Sorry, that wiki article was unimpressive. I think it was a university student trying to make it sound good. It read like a bunch of technical terms he was defining one after another. And everything was "model" or "simplified". Like a bike simulating a turn on a perfect surface with no rider. I challenge you to initiate a turn on an actual downhill country road, and then let go of the bars "to let the bike balance carry the turn".
> Rider continually makes steering input throughout the turn in real life. * Quickness of that steering depends on the length of the lever used to twist the fork tube.*


No, it depends on the headtube angle and fork offset.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Wheelspeed said:


> Quickness of that steering depends on the length of the lever used to twist the fork tube.


The long lever provided by the stem presents a wider arc of control from the handlebars, but the response of the bike is still determined by fork angle and offset, as CX points out. Perfect examples:

The commuter has 73 degree fork angle and slightly more trail. It "understeers," stays in line no matter what. The long 135 mm stem gives precise control over the headset bearings, but principally for balancing the bike and rider leaning into and scrolling through the turn. Essentially, rider is steering "straight ahead" all the time, making minute corrections to stay balanced and upright. The 135 mm stem requires a little more movement. It absorbs shocks from the fork a bit better, so the hands feel a little more comfortable on the hoods and handlebars.

The other bike has a 74 or 74.5 degree steering angle and a 120 mm stem. It neither feels cushy or too reactive, but just right. Easily forget it's there. Lean the bike this way or that, though, and the steep fork angle responds so quick, rider really has to pay attention, "oversteer!" I've overreacted riding that bike and gone off the MUT, twice! The 54 cm frame was originally spec'd with a 110 mm stem. The only difference I could feel after changing to the 120 mm stem was a perception of a little more weight on the front wheel, easily modulated by moving fore or aft on the saddle.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Nov 3, 2006)

Guys, I know all about head-tube and fork angle. I have a '19 mountain bike with about a 67 degree head tube and 50mm stem and 780mm bars; and a 15-year-old xc mtb with about a 71 degree head angle and 120mm stem and 700mm bars. Both use different forks with different trail and offsets. Actually, can feel the difference riding a mtb with 5" front suspension... uphill the bike has one head angle with the fork fully extended its 5", but downhill on the brakes with the fork squished, the head angle is 3" to 4" lower and you can feel it turn faster.

Anyway, I think I've contemplated this enough to figure it out. I think going from a 90mm to an 80mm stem will make it twitchier, and the stem length change is like a 12% difference. Getting bars that get the hoods 10mm closer to me and keeping the same stem should be a much less effect on twitchiness. I think it's certainly less of a % change of "leverage" about twisting the forktube.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Wheelspeed said:


> Guys, I know all about head-tube and fork angle. I have a '19 mountain bike with about a 67 degree head tube and 50mm stem and 780mm bars; and a 15-year-old xc mtb with about a 71 degree head angle and 120mm stem and 700mm bars. Both use different forks with different trail and offsets. Actually, can feel the difference riding a mtb with 5" front suspension... uphill the bike has one head angle with the fork fully extended its 5", but downhill on the brakes with the fork squished, the head angle is 3" to 4" lower and you can feel it turn faster.
> 
> Anyway, I think I've contemplated this enough to figure it out. I think going from a 90mm to an 80mm stem will make it twitchier, and the stem length change is like a 12% difference. Getting bars that get the hoods 10mm closer to me and keeping the same stem should be a much less effect on twitchiness. I think it's certainly less of a % change of *"leverage" about twisting the forktube*.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

If your on a bike, and you think your pushing on the handlebars in the middle of a turn, you have no idea what is happening.

I rode this morning and went around several corners at 10-20mph, without touching the bars at all, how u explain that? There was no twitchyness!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

duriel said:


> If *your* on a bike, and you think *your* pushing on the handlebars in the middle of a turn, you have no idea what is happening.
> 
> I rode this morning and went around several corners at 10-20mph, without touching the bars at all, how u explain that? There was no twitchyness!


C'mon..._you're_ is the word YOU ARE (you're) looking for.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

duriel said:


> If your on a bike, and you think your pushing on the handlebars in the middle of a turn, you have no idea what is happening.
> 
> I rode this morning and went around several corners at 10-20mph, without touching the bars at all, how u explain that? There was no twitchyness!


Good for ya! :thumbsup:

There was a right angle turn on a sidewalk MUT I had to negotiate that was too tight to lean into. I had to slow almost to a stop, actually turn the front wheel, and then go straight at the new angle. Obviously turning the front wheel 30 degrees at speed rider will lose his balance and go straight off the bike. 

Countersteer is putting pressure on the inside handlebar, correct? To keep the bike from "falling" into the turn? Also, if rider presses down hard on the outside pedal, the bike will stay firmly planted in the turn and rider can make course corrections with confidence. All a matter of inertial force and balance working together.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

9W9W said:


> My brain can't understand how the top of the bar will be in the same point in space if the distance to it from the steerer tube is different. I think you meant to say on the hoods.


Indeed I did. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

duriel said:


> I rode this morning and went around several corners at 10-20mph, without touching the bars at all, how u explain that? There was no twitchyness!


I absolutely agree. Frame geometry controls steering response at any speed above a slow walk, (where you actually do "steer" the bike). That is why crit bikes are hard to ride no hands, and tourers easy.
I have, as my fitness and weight changed, run stems from 80 to 120 mm on the same bike with the same bars, and notice no change in handling.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

MikeWMass said:


> I absolutely agree. Frame geometry controls steering response at any speed above a slow walk, (where you actually do "steer" the bike). That is why crit bikes are hard to ride no hands, and tourers easy.
> I have, as my fitness and weight changed, run stems from 80 to 120 mm on the same bike with the same bars, and notice no change in handling.


And there ya have it. Someone who understands how bicycles turn. :thumbsup:


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

Too bad Bicycling Magazine doesn't.
This is in an article on handlebars on their website:

*Reach: A longer reach can increase your leverage on the handlebar for more responsive bike handling (although too much can make steering feel too responsive, and put too much weight on the front wheel). *


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeWMass said:


> Too bad Bicycling Magazine doesn't.
> This is in an article on handlebars on their website:
> 
> *Reach: A longer reach can increase your leverage on the handlebar for more responsive bike handling (although too much can make steering feel too responsive, and put too much weight on the front wheel). *


Sure, it provides a slightly longer "lever" to make minor adjustments in steering, but the main determinants are geometry, mainly head tube angle and fork rake.

Curious that author feels longer stems could make the bike "too responsive." My 54cm commuter bike with 73 degree steering angle, has a long 135 mm stem. The bike steers "cushier," not so "quick" as a shorter stem, this by virtue of the longer lever. 

The longer lever can override the natural resistance in the bike geometry, though, which one might consider "too responsive." Control is amplified by the longer lever providing slightly more leverage. 

Traditional wisdom says the ideal placement of hands on hoods should be vertical above the front hub axle for optimum control and fore aft balance. Weight ahead of the front axle can more easily override the natural balance dialed in by geometry. The idea is to keep the weight between the wheels, not overlapping front or rear.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

MikeWMass said:


> Too bad Bicycling Magazine doesn't.
> This is in an article on handlebars on their website:
> 
> *Reach: A longer reach can increase your leverage on the handlebar for more responsive bike handling (although too much can make steering feel too responsive, and put too much weight on the front wheel). *


Damn, I guess that means anyone can write for a magazine.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Damn, I guess that means anyone can write for a magazine.


Pretty much. As long as the editor thinks the article will bring in readers. It's more important to sound interesting than to be true.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Does the Allez geometry differ from the Tarmac? The Tarmac is just right.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

onyrleftus said:


> Yes, and btw there are two Allez's with very different geometry and shape...tho both with internal cable routing and lowered seat stays.
> 
> The Allez Sprint is designed for crit racing. Crit racers are aggressive guys and crash a fair amount. Many amateurs can afford a $1K frame replacement...but $2K or more for a carbon frame replacement stings more than the crash...or can. So many unsponsored crit racers look to race with Al frame which honestly doesn't hold them back much...handful of grams more than anything else. The Alez Sprint may in fact be one of the best crit bikes on the planet. It has a very short head tube and very upright seat tube which promotes rider CG more forward on the bike and rotated lower...hopefully offset by pedal forces when racing and very short chainstays and short wheelbase for snappy handling.. It has a massive BB and even hydroformed aero cues not unlike the Tarmac SL6.
> 
> ...


Good Spesh summary. The CAAD 10 is the most raced frame for many of the reasons you mention. Al is light and affordable. Very aggressive geometry. Cannondale is the gold standard in Al frames. (The Super 6 carbon has put them on the main stage in CF as well) Sure, there are other options, but the CAAD 10 is so embedded in the niche you describe as to almost own it. Spesh would be the underdog challenger.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

The Caad10 and 12 are more of a classic european road race geometry than the Allez Sprint. The latter’s geometry is indeed very aggressive.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

onyrleftus said:


> True. Sprint is really purpose specific. I am sure too many however are sold to unsuspecting buyers who can't figure out why they can't get comfortable on the Sprint.
> 
> Sagan certainly has enough pedal force to unweight his body on the Sprint with upright seat tube angle, but average Joe doesn't. :wink5:


I just took a quick (far from thorough) look at the geometry of the Sprint, CAAD 12 and my bike, a Scott Foil. I checked a 58. The numbers look pretty similar on all 3 bikes, far from identical, but pretty close. What kind of factors would make them feel substantially different?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

onyrleftus said:


> Seat tube angle matters in terms of fore/aft weight distribution. Sprint has proprietary aero seat post and not much opportunity to change setback.
> Road race framesets for size 58...also what I ride...tend to be in the 73 deg range.
> A Sprint in size 58 has a 74 deg sta which affords a relatively short 405mm chainstay length. Move rider forward, easier to rotate pelvis to get more aero which works with short head tube...and of course more weight not only on the pedals but on the hands. Strong riders press hard enough on the pedals to keep hand pressure more manageable than weaker riders.
> 
> The new Foil is considered a very fine aero bike. Remarkably, you likely know as an owner, the Foil even won the Paris Roubaix after its most recent redesign. Early Foils were pretty brutal to ride as were many early aero bike like first gen Cervelo S5.


Thank you for the reply. Those numbers are identical between the 3 bikes mentioned... That’s kind of what I’m asking about. 

I’m on the previous design Foil, haha. It is unforgiving. I love how nimble and responsive it is though, and it corners precisely... It trained me.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

onyrleftus said:


> The Allez Sprint is designed for crit racing. Crit racers are aggressive guys and crash a fair amount. Many amateurs can afford a $1K frame replacement...but $2K or more for a carbon frame replacement stings more than the crash...or can. So many unsponsored crit racers look to race with Al frame which honestly doesn't hold them back much...handful of grams more than anything else. The Alez Sprint may in fact be one of the best crit bikes on the planet. *It has a very short head tube and very upright seat tube which promotes rider CG more forward on the bike and rotated lower.*..hopefully offset by pedal forces when racing and very short chainstays and short wheelbase for snappy handling.. It has a massive BB and even hydroformed aero cues not unlike the Tarmac SL6.
> 
> The Tarmac by contrast being fractionally lighter because molded in carbon is designed for road racing. The Tarmac SL6 if you own one or have ridden one also has a very friendly ride for a pure race bike. *Sta is more conventional...head tube is still slammed but not as aggressive as the Allez Sprint*...the Tarmac is all around road racing bike and very good climbing bike due to its stiffness and low weight.
> 
> The Allez Elite is an endurance geometry. One of the best Al endurance bikes IMO with the right wheel and groupset for the money. The frame is very good for long days in the saddle. All carbon fork. Not a pure racing bike per se but for average rider a much friendlier bike to ride for 3 hours...mostly due to slightly friendlier flex and riding position that IMO won't hold you back from your group ride if set up well. Stock wheels and tires aren't very high spec but Shimano 105 is good enough for amateur racing of course.


Oddly enough that doesn't seem to be the case on Specialized's geometry charts. The Allez Sprint has the same STA as the Venge and the Tarmac. A road bike can only have a STA of around 74.0-75.0* or it won't put the rider in a UCI legal position. While this doesn't matter for club racers Specialized isn't going to make a frame that can't be used in UCI events. The stack is within 6mm for all 3 frames as well with the Sprint being right in the middle and contrary to your post the Tarmac is the lowest. Also the headtube on the Sprint is only 3mm shorter than on the Tarmac. Not very big differences at all, actually.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Ok, I'm looking at the Allez Sprint disc, the S Works Tarmac, and the S Works Venge, all in 54cm.

Venge Tarmac Allez Sprint

Reach 387 384 385
Stack 534 544 538
ST angle 74 74 74
Head tube 133 143 140

The Allez Sprint isn't hugely different from anything that's considered a 'race' bike. I'll post photos of the charts if you still don't believe me.

ETA: Damn, when I typed that it was way easier to read but it changes when posted. You get the idea.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Ok, I'm looking at the Allez Sprint disc, the S Works Tarmac, and the S Works Venge, all in 54cm.
> 
> Venge Tarmac Allez Sprint
> 
> ...


Charts for the 3 bikes I looked at, for ease of comparison...




https://www.specialized.com/us/en/allez-sprint-comp/p/129269


https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/scott-foil-10-2016/


https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/cannondale-caad-12-2016-2018/


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

onyrleftus said:


> I tried to upload geometry charts from Specialized website for Allez and Tarmac. The Allez has a .5 deg more upright sta compared to the Tarmac. I maybe too new to post pictures...not sure.
> 
> We must be functioning in a parallel universe. The Tarmac has a taller stack compared to the Sprint just like I said...lol.
> 
> ...


The bikes I looked at all had 74* seat tube angles for a 54cm frame. I'd have to go back and look again to see if they're different in smaller or larger sizes. 

Why would or wouldn't Specialized change geometry between frames? Who knows?


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

blackfrancois said:


> Riding *in* the hoods ...


it's not riding in the hoods that's the problem. It's keeping a hand on the bars while you set fire to the three crosses in the field that's a bit tricky.

#amiright?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> it's not riding in the hoods that's the problem. It's keeping a hand on the bars while you set fire to the three crosses in the field that's a bit tricky.
> 
> #amiright?


Yep. 

Well, it would also be necessary to heavy up the hoods so they stay upright at speed. Maybe they pinned them down sideways.


----------

