Bars: compact, reach, drop?

[drjones]

Hi, what do these terms mean to someone looking for 'touring' bar (i.e. all day comfort)?
Thanks.

[cycleruk]

Not heard of "compact" bars? But logically will be small or narrow?
( to narrow a bar and it squeezes in the shoulders and restricts breathing)
Reach I would imagine is the back to front dimension but again not heard of it with reference to bars?
Drop = height of bars from the "tops" to lowest point.

As far as comfort there are bars which have a longer top straight section before they start to bend forward. You can put extra padding under the tape on this section for riding on the "tops"
Some bars also have a short straight section (before the brake lever hoods) for comfort.
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/productde ... EDAHBAR300

As far as reach, this is usually determined by the stem length. Short stem for more upright position of course.

You can ride on the tops,
or on the hoods,
or on the drops.
If you look at some bars, they are curved all the way round and really are only meant to be ridden on the drops, as in track racing. They are not very comfortable for "normal" riding.
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/productde ... EDAHBAS250

The other dimension I would look out for is the length of the drop section.
I have a bar that is short-ish here and when down on the drops I don't feel comfortable due to lack of secure grip.
I have found that I like the drop section to point down slightly from horizontal.

[drjones]

Thanks for your efforts.

Looking at some examples I think that 'compact' bars have shorter 'flat' sections (the bits you refered to, just behind the 'hoods') as well as less drop.

I found your comment about the length of the drops helpful. Having ridden with drop bars previously I now remember this being a bit an annoyance with one pair I had. Actually, looking at some pictures I think 'compacts' might be slightly shorter in this respect as well.

Which bars do you find most comfy out of interest?

[cycleruk]

Which bars do you find most comfy out of interest?

Anatomical
I like the bit of "straight" on the tops.
I have various other bars.
My tourer has anatomical style and is O.K. for all day.
I have used a section of old tape under the new tape. (a strip laid along the bar)
I have some slightly curved bars on my winter bike but I tend to fidget from one position to another.
I have a pair of carbon bars which came with my latest bike but these are the ones with short drop grips.
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=26147
They do tend to take up pounding from the rough roads round our way though.

[drjones]

Thanks for your comments.

[Tom Richardson]

Thanks for your efforts.

Looking at some examples I think that 'compact' bars have shorter 'flat' sections (the bits you refered to, just behind the 'hoods') as well as less drop.

Thats right. They don't project so far forwards to the place where the brake levers go and also curve round tightly so they have less drop. I've got some on my audax bike.

Less drop makes the bottom part easier to reach and I think theres some sense in that but I'm less sure about the sense in reducing distance to the brake lever hoods. Its useful to have a bit of a stretch to the brake hoods in contrast to riding on the tops to provide a variation in riding position and to get a bit more streamlined so I've found it to be more of a disadvantage than a benefit. I wouldn't buy them again and might eventually put these in the box with all the other bits I've bought that didn't really work.

[drjones]

Less drop makes the bottom part easier to reach and I think theres some sense in that but I'm less sure about the sense in reducing distance to the brake lever hoods.

So presumably one would spec a slightly longer stem; thus the single advantage to 'compacts' is the shallower drop (and, looking at some more pics, a tighter more rounded curve).

So just how useful are the 'flats'. They don't sound all that comfy to me and I was under the impression that it was the 'hoods' position that was used the vast majority of the time.

[drjones]

Less drop makes the bottom part easier to reach and I think theres some sense in that but I'm less sure about the sense in reducing distance to the brake lever hoods.

So presumably one would probably spec a slightly longer stem; thus the single advantage to 'compacts' is the shallower drop (and, looking at some more pics, a tighter more rounded curve).

So just how useful are the 'flats' on non-compact bars? They don't sound all that comfy to me; and anyway, I was under the impression that it was the 'hoods' position that was used the vast majority of the time.

[Tom Richardson]

you could use a longer stem to compensate for the reach

but for me the shortcoming is in the lack of difference between the tops and brake hoods. I find it useful to have a sit up and beg position on the tops and a moderately streched out position on the hoods. With the compact bars I bought I've got sit up an beg on both. A longer stem would just mean streched out on both.

On my other bike, with standard bars, ive got the variation and a nice length of steadily curved bar to put my hands on in between.

[drjones]

What do you mean by 'standard' bars Tom?!

I'm under the impression that once the 'compacts' have been removed from the equation there still remain all manner of curves and bumps from the countless manufacturers.

Did you stick with the ones your bike came with, or have you tried out several 'non-compacts'?

[rogerzilla]

I like the splayed and slightly dihedral Nitto Randonneurs, and also the FSA Omega shallow drops. Neither are expensive.

[drjones]

I didn't get on with Randonneurs when I tried them.

[GrahamG]

The 'compact' drops do vary quite a bit in terms of shape but are fairly similar in reach/drop. 90mm reach 120ish drop.

I've got some photos at home comparing the FSA omegas (shown above), Pro PLT compacts and 3TTT Ergosum from various angles which I can post if you think they might be of some use.

I ended up keeping the 3TTTs as they have a really nice tight radius bend from tops to hoods, whilst the other half preferred the Pro PLTs. The radius of the top bend on the FSA bars meant there was very little bar to grab onto when honking up hills.

[GrahamG]

I like the splayed and slightly dihedral Nitto Randonneurs, and also the FSA Omega shallow drops. Neither are expensive.

What are the nitto randonneurs like on the top bend? I can't find a plan view to show what they're like and was hoping for a 'comfort oriented' bar for an old road/path frame I'm refurbishin.

[Tom Richardson]

What do you mean by 'standard' bars Tom?!


Did you stick with the ones your bike came with, or have you tried out several 'non-compacts'?

the standard ones I have project forward by about 100/120mm (I haven't checked with a ruler). The compacts I have (Pro LT oversized) project forwards by maybe about 60/70mm. I like the shallow drop but prefer the 100/120mm forward reach.

In some ways I guess its a bit like saddles - go with what suits. What I said above won't apply to everyone but I think its worth bearing in mind that you lose variation in reach from your riding position options if you use them.

I've tried dozens of bars. (I've got three sets on the wall here made up with old saddles into the old stags head on shield thing). Some were ok and some were horrid. The reason I ditched my last set was because they had a deep and uncomfortable cable groove on the back but also wanted to shorten my reach. I did the same on my other bike with standard bars on a shorter stem and for me its better.