Which aerobars allow for a lower armrest position. When you add the headset stack height + the bar (or stem) width + the armrest bracket height, you end up quite high above the top tube. Some aerobars like the profile Jammers may be mounted unnder the bar. Is it safe? Which other bars allow this?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Which aerobars allow for a lower armrest position. When you add the headset stack height + the bar (or stem) width + the armrest bracket height, you end up quite high above the top tube. Some aerobars like the profile Jammers may be mounted unnder the bar. Is it safe? Which other bars allow this?
Re: Aerobars fit & safety [Thierry]
[ In reply to ]
Thierry: Are you the same guy that I love to ride with on Netathlon?
Jon aka Chemistree
Jon Bergmann
http://jonbergmann.com
Jon aka Chemistree
Jon Bergmann
http://jonbergmann.com
Netathlon? Not me...
[ In reply to ]
Re: Aerobars fit & safety [Thierry]
[ In reply to ]
When mounted under the bars, there's no space for the Jammer GT's to have their arm rests attached (ie they become basic Jamer SL's).
Instead it's more a case of resting your wrists / forearms on the flat section of the base bar (a la ITU racer), which doesn't really give you a significantly lower position, and certainly isn't comfortable for long periods. If you maintain your road race base bar position, clip-on arm rests will generally be too high - you'll have to drop the stem, and accept the compromise of a too-aggressive position whilst on the hoods.
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses—behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights"
Instead it's more a case of resting your wrists / forearms on the flat section of the base bar (a la ITU racer), which doesn't really give you a significantly lower position, and certainly isn't comfortable for long periods. If you maintain your road race base bar position, clip-on arm rests will generally be too high - you'll have to drop the stem, and accept the compromise of a too-aggressive position whilst on the hoods.
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses—behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights"
Re: Aerobars fit & safety [Thierry]
[ In reply to ]
I think the Jammer SL's would be rather uncomfortable if they weren't mounted under the bars. Other than those, the Profile Carbon Stryke, Split Second, and Airstryke also mount pretty low on the ram/cow horns. I haven't seen a set of Sonic Stryke in person, but from the looks of it, it would be pretty low depending on how high the mounting risers under the bars are.
"Back in the day," the Profile Aero II could be mounted in a high or a low position, since there were threaded holes for the armrests on both sides of the mounting brackets. Other than hand angle, those are still the most versatile bars ever, in my opinion. Pretty heavy, though.
"Back in the day," the Profile Aero II could be mounted in a high or a low position, since there were threaded holes for the armrests on both sides of the mounting brackets. Other than hand angle, those are still the most versatile bars ever, in my opinion. Pretty heavy, though.
Re: Aerobars fit & safety [Koz]
[ In reply to ]
Thank you,
I hope to be able to try a Profile Carbon Stryke... hopefully this will help. I am 5'9, and borderline 650/700. To limit tri-related expenses, I have am probably staying with a 700/road geometry. My head tube is 11cm tall. Many 700/55cm tri geometry bikes have head tubes that are taller than that: how do they ever get to a low armrest position. It seems odd to defeat part of the frame tri-geometry with poorly designed aerobars than cannot be mounted low enough. With road-tri hybrid bikes (Soloist) the problem is the same. I don't buy the argument that shorter head tubes aren't sturdy enough: many MTB's have shorter head tubes!
I hope to be able to try a Profile Carbon Stryke... hopefully this will help. I am 5'9, and borderline 650/700. To limit tri-related expenses, I have am probably staying with a 700/road geometry. My head tube is 11cm tall. Many 700/55cm tri geometry bikes have head tubes that are taller than that: how do they ever get to a low armrest position. It seems odd to defeat part of the frame tri-geometry with poorly designed aerobars than cannot be mounted low enough. With road-tri hybrid bikes (Soloist) the problem is the same. I don't buy the argument that shorter head tubes aren't sturdy enough: many MTB's have shorter head tubes!
Well, MTB's have drastically different geometry. The kicker, though, is the smaller wheels. If you went to 650 wheels, you'd be able to get your armrests a bit lower. Sticking with a road bike limits your ability to do that, though. The only other thing to try would be a smaller frame entirely, but then you have to make sure that the top tube and stem are long enough and fit becomes more difficult.