Hey Andrew,

Im not sure if you will be able to set me straight, but for some reason I remember that there was testing done on both the 100k and the scott extremes (I went through two sets of these), and the drag numbers were worse than the base-bar/aero bar combo. I took it as a surprise at the time, as I thought that they 'looked' the fastest. My recollection was that the testing was done pre-slowtwitch, and appeared on RST a bunch of years ago (maybe back around 2000ish). Am I remembering this completely wrong? This was the main reason that I abandoned the extremes and went to a vision tech base bar/ clipon (well that, and I got a set of vision techs for near nothing).

Stephen J

What I think is missing from this as well as the Retro thread is the best shifting system EVER for aero bars - GRIP SHIFT!

I think it is a great idea...but, I would not be shocked if someone at Profile, Scott (who is still around) or Leonard was to drop a meanie letter.

Aerobars that are up to 3lbs lighter than current bars...I am all for that.

Hey Andrew,

Im not sure if you will be able to set me straight, but for some reason I remember that there was testing done on both the 100k and the scott extremes (I went through two sets of these), and the drag numbers were worse than the base-bar/aero bar combo. I took it as a surprise at the time, as I thought that they 'looked' the fastest. My recollection was that the testing was done pre-slowtwitch, and appeared on RST a bunch of years ago (maybe back around 2000ish). Am I remembering this completely wrong? This was the main reason that I abandoned the extremes and went to a vision tech base bar/ clipon (well that, and I got a set of vision techs for near nothing).

Stephen J

I don't recall ever seeing any wind tunnel data for the Scott 100k bars. However, Dr. Jim Martin (hi Jim! <g>) did some handlebar (and helmet) testing for Project 96 that included the Scott Extremes. Compared to round cowhorns + clip-ons, they were actually slightly less aerodynamic, possible because their mouthharp shape meant that there were two sections of round tubing crossing the wind.

Hmmm....judging by his response above ("Don't mess with perfection! I'd buy a pair of reproductions.") I would guess the 100Ks aren't as bad as the Extremes...pure speculation though ;-)

Don't mess with perfection! I'd buy a pair of reproductions.

Cheers,

Jim

As I indicated, I don't think Jim ever tested the 100k bars. I agree, though, that their narrowness/lesser curvature than the Extremes makes it seem likely that they are more aero, although not necessarily more aero than modern conventional bars.

Maybe if somebody finally gave you back your tubing bender you could just make some? ;-)

can you just zip-tie the things narrower?

The drop in CdA I measured going from the Vision/Profile T2+ setup to the 100Ks implies that they can be...

Do you feel you lose anything at the start/turnaround? (better question: how long does it take you to do the first 1000 feet of a flat TT with that set-up).

Have you tried the CeeGees mounts? About the only thing I don't like about them is I wish I could move them outboard just slightly...since they clamp on the straight part of the bar they end up fairly narrow. Although, I do have to say I've gotten used to my elbows being in so close. But, I'm sure others might not like them that narrow...

I agree on bringing the "handgrip" portions in closer together...also, maybe the "loops" could have a short straight section in the middle of them (running fore-aft)?

A very low profile brake lever made specifically for that bar that could be mounted on the outer portions of the "loops" pointing down would be a nice addition as well.

Actually...this all gave me an alternate idea :-)

I think it's an open question. I really don't consider the set up to which you compared it to be that ideal. The brake levers are pretty clunky, and the hardware on the Profile bars seems less-than ideal. Also, if you used the stock Profile arms rests, those alone could be adding some drag. Add into that the variability of field testing... I'm not saying it's not faster, just that I'm not convinced.


Personally, I'd still put my slightly-modified one-piece Vision bar up against it. Of course, there's that UCI thing...

Do you feel you lose anything at the start/turnaround? (better question: how long does it take you to do the first 1000 feet of a flat TT with that set-up).

They aren't listed on the CeeGees website, but you can usually find them selling the "transformer arm rest plates" on ebay...like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...?hash=item2556e6f61c

Like I mentioned earlier though, on the 100Ks the set angle of the arm rests and the limited straight section of the bar tends to put them in a position where each arm rest is "pointing" at the opposite shifter location. I've gotten used to that though, and it's not uncomfortable at all...there's still a lot of "leeway" in how you place your elbows/forearms in the cups.