Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

[531colin]

Re. brake lever position, I'm a bit behind for various reasons...
I've never owned a set of STIs
Arthritic thumbs mean I had to forsake my drops. (can't hang by my thumbs off the hoods to brake) never ever used to brake from the drops.
When I could use drops I set the "ramps" (the bit behind where you fix the levers) horizontal, and the hoods continuing horizontally.
(old picture here https://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/29484912954/in/album-72157624571269648/
Those are Nitto noodle bars, which I liked for the long ramps, and its a Spa roughstuff bike . they are really long, the 53 has 600 ETT, although you can call it 590 as the seat tube angle is 71 deg.

[531colin]

Thanks. But I thought it was the other way round:....

Sorry, what was the other way round?

That the long green Wayfarer only has disc mounts.

And that the short blue Wayfarer has disc and canti mounts.

Oh, wait. "Cable STOPS". Have I misunderstood?

OK.....
Long = disc only
Short = disc mounts and canti mounts....but no cable hanger for the canti cable at the seat cluster

[mikeymo]

Sorry, what was the other way round?

That the long green Wayfarer only has disc mounts.

And that the short blue Wayfarer has disc and canti mounts.

Oh, wait. "Cable STOPS". Have I misunderstood?

OK.....
Long = disc only
Short = disc mounts and canti mounts....but no cable hanger for the canti cable at the seat cluster

Great, thanks for that. I personally wouldn't be offended at the sight of unused brake bosses (if that's what was putting some customers off). But unused hangers would look a bit weird. And are easy enough to add, I think. Especially as one of my fantasy ideas is for a single rear "drag" cantilever.

By the way Colin, just perusing your photos, there's one which is geometry, labelled "Panorama 2011". Can I take it that that's for a Ridgeback Panorama? If so it gives me a bit more info to compare.

Yes, I agree, going out and buying a new frame could well be a mistake. But you might be underestimating my propensity to spend large sums of money on things I don't need

[531colin]

Oh yes! there is....must be Ridgeback, mustn't it, if its "Panorama"
Theres Raleigh Royal too, and one un-labelled....we'll never know about that one , now!

[mikeymo]

Oh yes! there is....must be Ridgeback, mustn't it, if its "Panorama"
Theres Raleigh Royal too, and one un-labelled....we'll never know about that one , now!

Thanks. But if it's a Panorama, it's not my Panorama, as I certainly don't have 120 mm head tube (that looks a bit like a typo to me).

But I've picked up more Wayfarer measurements from your earlier thread in about 2018, the one where I said I wish I known about the Wayfarer before I bought the frame I did!

Anyways, looking at the various geometries (and reading round a couple of figures that looks like typos), it seems like the 54 short blue Wayfarer is pretty similar to my 54 Panorama, with perhaps 7mm shorter ETT (and longer chain stays, yay!!). BUT the difference in STA means that if I imagine a triangle with the three points - top of seat tube, stem top, BB, they are more or less the same, but the BB on the Wayfarer is about 25mm further forward. Therefore the efforts I'm making now to get the saddle back, to get my knees comfortable, I wouldn't have to make. So the reach would actually be 25mm shorter. Or about 32mm, with the short TT.

I need to get over to Spa and try one, if there's one fitted out. Though I would probably struggle to explain that as an "essential journey" at the moment. I'll give them a ring, see what they've got left.

Thanks.

[slowster]

Yes, I feel like the hoods are a bit too far away. I went into the drops, which I hardly ever do. And it actually felt really comfortable, except I was acutely aware I was a long distance from the brakes. I could get at them, just. I have small hands, for a man. But my hands felt fine, and I didn't feel at all cramped <SNIP>

You said - " I use Tektro RL520 levers on a classic shallow curve bar with the levers rotated back a bit." I don't really know what that sort of bar is, could you give an example please, and how it might help. The bike's a 9x3 speed (Sora shifters and derailleurs). But I wouldn't mind changing if there's a shifter, even an old second hand one, that would work better. A quick google tells me yours are just brake levers so presumably you use downtube or bar end shifters, yes? I kind of like the STIs to be honest, and would need to know there was going to be a massive benefit to change.

The Surly bike in my post above has a classic shallow curve bar. Lance Armstrong's 1999 TdF bike had a similar set up: Deda 215 shallow curve bars and old shape STIs angled upwards and with a curve to the hoods:


Quite a few manufacturers still have a bar with this shape in their range. The diagram below shows the different curves of Deda bars with a Campag Ergolever fitted, and their RHM bar is a sub-compact bar like yours. Although for comparison purposes the bottom sections of the drops are horizontal, it's common for shallow curve bars to be mounted with the bottom sloping 10-15 degrees upward


My opinions and findings, based on my own experience and the comments I have read of others, are as follows:

1. Sub-compact bars combined with STIs are very restrictive in terms of adjusting the position of the bars (incl. bar height and stem length, which will affect how much weight is placed on horizontal flat hoods and their feel in the hand) and the position of the STIs on the bars. In other words, they are designed for the STIs to be mounted on a particular point with little room for variation, and the expectation is that bars are then rotated such that the flat area of the hoods is horizontal. Great if that suits you, e.g. most road racers with significant saddle to bar drop, but very unlikely to be ideal for the rest of us.

2. WRT to your question about untaping the bars, moving the STIs, and re-taping, I suspect that you would find that the range of movement to rotate the STI up or down on the tight radius bend of sub-compact bars is so limited that it's not worth trying. That is why I think it is so common to see inflexible/overweight riders who have rotated the bars backwards in the stem: it's the only way they can alter the angle of the STIs.

3. Regarding being able to brake from the drops, sub-compact bars result in a fairly large gap between the hand in the drops and the lever. This is the price of the dropped section of the bar curving back sharply towards the rider: it reduces the stretch and reach to get into the drops, but increases the gap between the hand and the lever blades. Some STIs have a facility to adjust the lever blades and reduce that distance, but I don't know if that includes yours.

4. As you have correctly identified, if it were possible to bring STIs further round to the top of the bars, the levers will be even further away in the drops. Rotating the bars backwards has the same effect, because the hands will then rest in a lower position on the drops that is also further from the levers, e.g.


5. A small childs hands will have even more difficulty reaching the levers in the drops, and I think it is telling that Hoy Bikes fit shallow curve bars to their children's bikes with STI type shifters, e.g. the 24" wheeled bike below


6. I don't know how much scope there is to adjust the position of modern STIs on a shallow curve bar, or how comfortable the hoods would be with the flat area angled somewhat upwards, but since I happen to have a bike with sub-compact bars and STIs, I am going to fit some shallow curve bars eventually and find out.

Finally and most importantly, If there is one key thing I think you should keep in mind with regard to the position of bars (height, shape, rotation, stem length etc.) and the position of STIs on the bars, it is that there is so much scope for variation (and that changing one variable may negatively affect another, e.g. a better position of the hoods may increase the reach to the levers in the drops), that this aspect of bike fit needs to be left until last. Only consider experimenting with bar and lever shape and position once you are competely satisfied with pedal cleat set up and saddle height and setback.

[mikeymo]

Yes, I feel like the hoods are a bit too far away. I went into the drops, which I hardly ever do. And it actually felt really comfortable, except I was acutely aware I was a long distance from the brakes. I could get at them, just. I have small hands, for a man. But my hands felt fine, and I didn't feel at all cramped <SNIP>

You said - " I use Tektro RL520 levers on a classic shallow curve bar with the levers rotated back a bit." I don't really know what that sort of bar is, could you give an example please, and how it might help. The bike's a 9x3 speed (Sora shifters and derailleurs). But I wouldn't mind changing if there's a shifter, even an old second hand one, that would work better. A quick google tells me yours are just brake levers so presumably you use downtube or bar end shifters, yes? I kind of like the STIs to be honest, and would need to know there was going to be a massive benefit to change.

The Surly bike in my post above has a classic shallow curve bar. Lance Armstrong's 1999 TdF bike had a similar set up: Deda 215 shallow curve bars and old shape STIs angled upwards and with a curve to the hoods:


Quite a few manufacturers still have a bar with this shape in their range. The diagram below shows the different curves of Deda bars with a Campag Ergolever fitted, and their RHM bar is a sub-compact bar like yours. Although for comparison purposes the bottom sections of the drops are horizontal, it's common for shallow curve bars to be mounted with the bottom sloping 10-15 degrees upward


My opinions and findings, based on my own experience and the comments I have read of others, are as follows:

1. Sub-compact bars combined with STIs are very restrictive in terms of adjusting the position of the bars (incl. bar height and stem length, which will affect how much weight is placed on horizontal flat hoods and their feel in the hand) and the position of the STIs on the bars. In other words, they are designed for the STIs to be mounted on a particular point with little room for variation, and the expectation is that bars are then rotated such that the flat area of the hoods is horizontal. Great if that suits you, e.g. most road racers with significant saddle to bar drop, but very unlikely to be ideal for the rest of us.

2. WRT to your question about untaping the bars, moving the STIs, and re-taping, I suspect that you would find that the range of movement to rotate the STI up or down on the tight radius bend of sub-compact bars is so limited that it's not worth trying. That is why I think it is so common to see inflexible/overweight riders who have rotated the bars backwards in the stem: it's the only way they can alter the angle of the STIs.

3. Regarding being able to brake from the drops, sub-compact bars result in a fairly large gap between the hand in the drops and the lever. This is the price of the dropped section of the bar curving back sharply towards the rider: it reduces the stretch and reach to get into the drops, but increases the gap between the hand and the lever blades. Some STIs have a facility to adjust the lever blades and reduce that distance, but I don't know if that includes yours.

4. As you have correctly identified, if it were possible to bring STIs further round to the top of the bars, the levers will be even further away in the drops. Rotating the bars backwards has the same effect, because the hands will then rest in a lower position on the drops that is also further from the levers, e.g.


5. A small childs hands will have even more difficulty reaching the levers in the drops, and I think it is telling that Hoy Bikes fit shallow curve bars to their children's bikes with STI type shifters, e.g. the 24" wheeled bike below


6. I don't know how much scope there is to adjust the position of modern STIs on a shallow curve bar, or how comfortable the hoods would be with the flat area angled somewhat upwards, but since I happen to have a bike with sub-compact bars and STIs, I am going to fit some shallow curve bars eventually and find out.

Finally and most importantly, If there is one key thing I think you should keep in mind with regard to the position of bars (height, shape, rotation, stem length etc.) and the position of STIs on the bars, it is that there is so much scope for variation (and that changing one variable may negatively affect another, e.g. a better position of the hoods may increase the reach to the levers in the drops), that this aspect of bike fit needs to be left until last. Only consider experimenting with bar and lever shape and position once you are competely satisfied with pedal cleat set up and saddle height and setback.

Fantastic, thanks so much for this.

So that we're talking about the same thing, the bars I've got at the moment (FSA Wingbar 420mm 80mm by 120mm) are what you would call "sub compact" and roughly equivalent to the Deda RHM, yes? In fact it looks as though mine are even more 'squashed'.

Presumably the Anatomica is similar, but with the extra flat section to make riding in "the hooks" more comfortable?

And the problem is that the bend is so tight there isn't much choice about where the STIs actually go, whereas with a curve with a longer radius you can put them more or less where you like? And even more so on the deep classic?

I think I remember angling the bars back, and then realised it makes riding in the hooks impossible. At least if you want to have any chance at all of reaching the brake levers. Your forearms have to be sloping upwards.

I hardly ever ride in the hooks or on the drops. On my "test ride" yesterday I noticed a couple of people on the drops. And when I tried it (on traffic free roads) it was surprisingly comfortable.

So your reason for choosing the classic shallows is to place the STIs where you want them? And have the levers more accessible in the hooks?

Is there a reason you aren't going for the deep classics?

I'll bear your caveat about changing bars/stem and so on at the end. There's a Selle Anatomica (second hand) on its way to me right now, which has far greater setback. That might give me a better idea which way to go.

I rang Spa, by the way. I pointed out the minor error in the geometry table for the Wayfarer. There are some frames left in the size I'm considering (54cm blue short). But the next lot won't have canti bosses on. But they haven't got any made up to ride. Interestingly he asked me what I thought of the "extra" canti bosses. I said I thought it was a brilliant idea and that every manufacturer should do it, given that it presumably costs very little. It seems there's been some discussion about them at Spa.

Cheers.

[slowster]

1. It doesn't bother me, but I think that the mods generally ask that when quoting from a long post, you do not include the quoted post in its entirety, otherwise it clogs up the thread and make it harder to read through. So it's advised just to copy the specific comment you want to refer to, or to quote just the first and last sentences with something like <SNIP> inserted in between.

2. Remember that what I am saying is only my opinion, based largely on my own personal experience. People are all different and have different shaped bodies. What suits me may not suit others and vice versa. (Which is why I have tried to explain my preferences and thoughts, so that you can consider whether you might be likely to find the same.)

3. "So that we're talking about the same thing, the bars I've got at the moment (FSA Wingbar 420mm 80mm by 120mm) are what you would call "sub compact" and roughly equivalent to the Deda RHM, yes? In fact it looks as though mine are even more 'squashed'." Well, they are what I call sub-compact. I think the manufacturers all like to try to persuade us that their particular variant of that shape is different to their competitors, but as far I as can see there is not really a lot of variation.

4. "Presumably the Anatomica is similar, but with the extra flat section to make riding in "the hooks" more comfortable?" The so called anatomic bars with that flat section in the drops is the worst design of all IMO. It assumes/requires that your hands grip the drops at one wrist angle with no variation. Even if that wrist angle were optimum for you, it is unlikely that you would be comfortable maintaining the same grip for prolonged periods while in the drops. For me, the whole point of drop bars is that no one position is perfect - the perfection instead comes from the ability to keep varying the position of the hands on the bars, before a position becomes uncomfortable. I think of curved drops as an extension of this: by making very small movements of the hand up/down the curve it is possible to vary the wrist angle and delay the point where the position becomes uncomfortable after being in it for so long. For a somewhat different take on this subject, have a read of Steve Hogg on the subject (531Colin rates Steve Hogg highly and has been quite open about the fact that his bike fitting guidance is based on a condensation of Steve Hogg's guidance.)

5. "And the problem is that the bend is so tight there isn't much choice about where the STIs actually go, whereas with a curve with a longer radius you can put them more or less where you like? And even more so on the deep classic?" I don't know for certain with STIs, because I've yet to unwrap my bars and try (feel free to have a go and let us know what you find). Neverthless I am doubtful that STIs could be moved significantly further up the tight bend of (most?) sub-compact bars. My experience is that most ordinary plain brake levers have a wider range of movement/mounting positions than STIs or Campag Ergolevers, presumably because they have less surface area in contact with the bars above/below the clamp.

6. "So your reason for choosing the classic shallows is to place the STIs where you want them? And have the levers more accessible in the hooks?" I started riding with classic shallow bars, and I never had any difficulty setting them up to get a position that was comfortable for a 100+ mile ride, and similarly no problem getting the hoods in a position where they just felt right and I could stay on them for hours without giving them any thought. There was no need for a bike fit, and none of us went round complaining that we could not get the bars set up properly. Personally I am not prepared to waste any more of my time trying to get a good set up with sub-compact bars and STIs, and am going back to what has always worked for me and countless others.

7. "Is there a reason you aren't going for the deep classics?" I haven't tried them and don't feel any need to do so. I don't spend much time in the drops, but I do like the fact that I do not have to bend down much to hold the drops in a shallow curve. I'm sure they have their advantages though - Greg Lemond and (I think) Eddy Merckx used deep classic bars - one of which may be that for the same given height of the bottom of the drops, deep classic bars will have the top of the bars higher than a shallow curve, giving a slightly more upright position for climbing a big long hill. That might partly explain why they are not so much in fashion now: raising a deep bar higher is simple with a quill stem, but will need either additional spacers with a threadless headset (possibly too many spacers given the standard 30mm maximum for a carbon steerer) or possibly even the next size up frame*. See also Steve Hogg's comments in that linked article about palm size and shallow curve bars. NB I think the Nitto Noodle bar mentioned by 531Colin is similar to a deep classic curve bar, and you can see a nice example of a bike set up with one and plain brake levers here.

8. * Which is another thing while I'm on the subject. I think the sub-compact bar shape has gone hand in hand with many people choosing either a smaller frame than used to be normal, i.e. choosing small if they are on the cusp of small and medium sizes, or having fewer spacers under the stem. A smaller frame will typically have a shorter head tube, resulting in the drops being lower, and I think sub-compact bars may have been introduced to counteract the effect of lowering the drops by bring them backwards closer to the rider.

9. A final thought about brake lever hood shape. In many of the photos I've posted/linked to above, you will see the hoods angled upwards, giving what I think of as akin to a 'pistol grip' for the hand to hold and rest on. Crucially, that hood angle determines the amount of bend in the wrist: the upwards angle of the hoods requires minimal bend on the wrist, i.e. the wrist is in line with the forearm. Because the hoods are curved, that also allows for a bit of variation in how/where the hands grip the grip the hoods while still keeping the wrist straight, something which will not be the case with a flat hood.

With modern STIs mounted with the flat area of the hoods horizontal, you will probably only have little or no bend in the wrist if you have a full on road race set up with the bars significantly lower than the saddle. If the bars are at the same height as the saddle, then you will probably have to bend the wrist to grip the STI hoods (imagine the bend in the wrist required to hold an antique flintlock grip). IMO wrist in line with the forearm with minimal bend should be the most comfortable option, and riding for long periods with the wrist bent is probably asking for trouble.

[RickH]

When I got back into cycling in 2008, after a break, I got a new bike. It came with ITM "anatomical" bars which I had with the tops flat (with Ergos with the hoods running more-or-less straight from the tops. They were OK but I never found the drops very comfortable. Eventually 1 replaced them with FSA Vero (see below) plus a longer stem (100mm v 90mm). That brought the hoods a little closer but the tops a little farther (it had tended to feel a little cramped riding on the tops) & the drop now had a comfortable position (I think the ITM bars made me bend my wrists to grip).



Current bike is running Deda Zeros (with SRAM Rival1 Doubletap hydraulics) which is a very similar shaped set of bars.

[mikeymo]

1. It doesn't bother me, but I think that the mods generally ask that when quoting from a long post, you do not include the quoted post in its entirety...

Yes, I wondered about that when I posted. I'm sure you're right.

Thanks again for your detailed reply.

A lot to think about there. There are at least a few things that can guide me:

1. I do have small hands. About 80mm across.

2. I have no interest in sports riding. So flat out "aero" isn't something I need. Neither is "sprinting out of the saddle".

3. I like STIs. I assume you have downtube/bar-end shifters? I'm not totally against changing, but there would have to be a very compelling reason.

4. The bike has a steel steerer. And even if I change frame, the next one will. So having a lot of steerer above the head tube isn't the issue it would be with a carbon steerer.

5. I'm not a young man, but I don't have any particular problems with flexibility. My overall weight is within BMI for my height, and although my midriff isn't a super flat six pack, there's really only a small amount of middle aged paunch. Basically I can bend at the waist OK. Similarly, whilst I'm not a yogi, my back is generally fine.

So, the other day when I spent some (admittedly short) time both in the hooks and on the drops it felt fine. Small hands in the hooks worked. And on the drops also fine. I didn't feel my torso was cramped. I felt I could have spent a lot of time down there (though clearly need to try it for a longer time). The only thing I really didn't like was the distance to the brake levers. If that was better I'd ride in the hooks more. And even on the drops.

Consequently I'm kind of wondering whether "classic deep" would actually suit me as much as shallow. Certainly in the Deda bars you reference (which seem to be called "Deda Elementi Zero 100" deep/shallow) the ramps on the deep ones don't slope down as sharply. Therefore to get a more comfortable "on the hoods" position, together with an "in the hooks position" where I could reach the levers, the deep might be better than the shallow.

"RHM" - Rapid Hand Movement seems to be a thing at the moment. The only rapid hand movement I'm interested in is getting to the brakes in a hurry. Does that factor into any of this? Or is it just buzzword du jour?

I do notice that Steve Hogg seems to think that what we are calling a "compact" bar is the best. And his assessments seem to be guided by sports cycling. I am never, ever going to be "sprinting out of the seat", for instance. His "Bar Four" seems to be closest to the one we're considering, and the con he mentions for that wouldn't apply to me. In fact I would prefer a round top, as I like to have cross top levers, and it also might make fitting various mounts easier.

Looking through the various online sellers' options, it looks to me like the vast majority of bars for sale are pretty much identical. Lots and lots of "compact" or "sub compact" bars which look the same. Would I be right in thinking that to increase the possibility of finding the sort of bars you are suggesting, terms like "classic" and "italian" would be a good start?

Yes, I understand that you are only suggesting options, and that what works for one person might not work for another. But I never really thought about bars when I built this bike up. Gear train, levers, frame, wheels, yes. But I turned up at Spa to pick up the stuff I'd ordered online, and the sum total of thought and discussion about bars was - "Oh, I'll need some handlebars, what do you think?" - "I'd get these, 420 is probably about right for your shoulders" - "thanks, I'll take them". I didn't even really know there were options, so any input is gratefully received.