i guess there aerobars are hard to describe but definitly a broke wrist......not sure it s very aero in his case but he says he really like them.....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Dude, I am talking about his top . . . his man-bra. Get it?

hummm.....yeah.....ok.....me stupid.......hummmm......me not ready carefully.......hummm......got it now!!!!!

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

If I recall correctly the cockpit Al-Sultan used at Hawaii in 2005 did have traditional ski bends. I am quite certain of it as a matter of fact.

He was out split on the bike by Torbjorn Sindballe, who did use a straighter, "S" bend extension from Oval (custom made to his dimensions however).

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

not sure what the ski bend is but yes....his wrist as a slight bend...not much still not a neutral anatomic position.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Faris also rode slower on more watts than Torbjorn. And Sindballe is quite bigger than Faris too.

He looked almost as good in 2005 as Normann did in 2006.

Here is the best picture I have found:

http://www.xentis.com/...eg_2005_IMG_9049.JPG

Looks to me like he doesn't mind the downward-cocked wrist angle, but I honestly don't understand how someone could hold that kind of a position for 4+ hours even on smooth roads.

When I ride my Profile T2+ S-bends (tt machine rather than tri), I almost always rotate my wrist so that my hand is is resting palm-down on the bend with the least frontal area that I can manage and still feel like I have a decent grip on the bars. I also tip mine up several degrees steeper than "level" from the bar's perspective to make my forearms level.

Chris

Let's face the facts here. You use 's-bends' because the top pro triathletes use them. And they use them for the same reason, because in '04 Lance started using them. He started the trend in triathlon, and even he was following someone else who was getting a little too close for comfort before the change:



We don't do things because they're faster, or because we like them better. This is triathlon, we do things either because others did it and we hope it made them faster...because Lance did it, or Team CSC did it.....OR because it looks cool ;^)

sorry....not sure how you know why i ride s bend...... i started riding them in 2002 with a mountain bike handelbar that i cut in 2 peice and used that as my extension on a very old project X profile design bar....... it was just more comfy for me......that why i went that way....

a lot of people find them super comfy and like them....some find them cool some dont like them..... it s very individual but they have been around way before 2004.....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Interesting point. One aero issue I have always wondered about re: extensions is whether or not you want to "close" the opening between head and hands. With straight, horizontal bars one presents a "C" or "cup" that catches/directs wind into the torso. Reading bewteen the lines on some discussions, it would seem that the best path is to direct the airflow is either over the top of your shoulders, or under your arms below your torso and around your legs, not into your torso. Angling the bars up slightly would seem to present a more aerodynamic bullet to the wind, vs. the "C".

Any thoughts on this.

check this out:

http://biketechreview.com/...ance/ruleofthumb.htm


The Straight Aero Bar Extension Trend
Jan Ullrich, or was it Jens Voigt, has made the straight aero bar extension the latest fad/trend in the TT product world. The internet is full of people describing just how they took a hacksaw to their $400 one-piece bars (like the Easton Attack, CSC Vision Tech, Profile Carbons, etc...) so that they could adopt the Ullrich/Voigt hand position. I mean heck, those guys are winning with those style of bar extensions, so it MUST be fast, right?
Applying the tenuous “constant Cd” assumption discussed previously, I set out to see how these straight aero bars, or more precisely, the resultant hand position required to grab onto that style of bar affected measured frontal area. The reasoning goes that if the frontal area was smaller with a particular hand position, well, that would be the aero bar extension that everyone’s just “gotta” have…
The experiment consisted of sitting myself in a chair while wearing lots of black (so that my hands would be easy to extract from the digital picture) and rotating my hands downward in ~ 10 degree increments.

Figure 1. Wide angle shot of the hand position frontal area sweep setup.

After processing these images to determine frontal area, I was able to create the following table:

Figure 2. Straight aero bar extensions put your hands in a position somewhere between #3 and #4 above.

I would estimate that the hand position necessary to grab onto the straight style of aero bar extension is somewhere between that illustrated by position #3 and #4 above. Interestingly, the frontal area measurements show these two positions to have the highest frontal area by up to 20% as the chart below also illustrates:

Figure 3. Hand position and frontal area.

It should be noted that the minimum frontal area was measured with hand position #2. Upon closer inspection, the minimum frontal area hand position can best be described by looking at the relationship between the thumb and the forearm.
Position #2 is obtained when the thumb is parallel to the forearm and the forearm is also held parallel to the ground. An easier way to visualize this relationship is if one places a ruler on top of the forearm. Ideally, when the minimum frontal area hand position is achieved, the ruler should touch the forearm and thumb along its entire length as seen below:

Figure 4. The rule of the thumb - keep it inline with the forearm for smallest frontal area.

Hand positions #3 and #4 significantly deviate from the line projected off the forearm as is illustrated in figure 5.

Figure 5. This hand position results in a larger frontal area.

My “Rule of the thumb” should be clear by now; I think that for best aerodynamics people should keep that thumb and forearm in contact with a “virtual” ruler that extends out from the forearm. The resulting hand position based on the “rule of the thumb” setup has been shown to present a slightly smaller frontal area and perhaps, ultimately, faster TT times. In summary, the thumb metatarsal should be kept as flat as possible, and honestly, that’s quite tough to do when one lops off the upturns on their appropriately shaped conventional aero bars and opts to go the straight bar extension route.
And to think that someone had the audacity to claim I had too much time on my hands…

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

So would the praying-Landis position.

I have read this biketechreview.com post. He only measured the frontal area of the hand. What happens to the forearms, shoulders and head when the hand position is changed?

And what can be said of tilting the arms up or down. If, as some suggest, we're better off with the bars tilted up, then we're exposing more of our arms to the wind and slowing ourselves down. If we only rely on this method of analysis.

Clearly, we have to look at the effects of adopting different hand positions on the entire position. Just like we can't put an aero helmet in a tunnel and determine its benefit to a particular rider we can't put just our hands in there either. For a lot of reasons, actually.

...but to spin himself as an expert. By creating attention upon him and his business, he gets more clients.

Hello pot...

~Matt

Here's a portuguese saying for you:

"You can't catch flies with vinegar"

You're right. There are a large number of factors when considering the possible resultant differences in performance affected by using one aerobar bend as opposed to another.

I would summarize some of those factors as:

• Aerodynamic drag. Does an "S" bend result in an overall lower drag coefficient and smoother boundry layer with smaller vortices? How will an "S" bend be affected as wind yaw angle/vecored wind speed change throughout the riding envelope. This is tough to test for since few wind tunnels have the capability to induce yaw angles beyond 15 degrees. Nonetheless, some wind tunnel data may provide insight. Drag may be an intersting factor here provided it is a realistic depiction of drag in a cycling environment.
• Power output. Simple. Have a rider do some testing using an SRM or Powertap in the real world on several different types of terrain. Download and interpret the data. Tough to hold other factors relatively constant, but a decent comparison nonetheless. I have a hypothesis on this one: "S" bends will result in higher power numbers per heart rate at lower cadences on an indoor trainer only. In the real world I hypothesize that they will not produce better power numbers than ski bends. Additionally, I hypothesize that power numbers will drop off as the duration of the test becomes greater with "S" bends, but will remain more constant with ski bends.
• Muscular involvement. I mean, I am guessing here because I'm operating way above my pay grade on this subject matter- but hear me out. Isn't there an electronic device applied to the skin that uses transdermal sensors to measure muscle activity/involvement? OK. Put those things on a guy. Make him ride with both bends in seperate tests. Measure the muscular involvement with "S" bends and with ski bends. Plot this involvement against speed, power output and heart rate. This is a test that needs to be performed on a stationary trainer to limit the environmental variables. What is the result? Does the athlete involve more muscles at a higher physiological cost with one handlebar configuration over the other?

Now, those are just three factors that I could brain storm some investigative protocols for. One I just pulled out of my ass (last one). But here's the thing: After all this time and all this testing there is still the rather subjective, untestable factor of comfort. If the rider isn't comfortable, it likely will affect the outcome in ways difficult for us to understand and perhaps impossible to test for.

It's been said in this thread before, and I agree with this: The different bends do work for different people. I know Empfield has called "bullshit" on that canned answer to every equipment debate, but I think it does apply to a degree here.

Now, I will assert that "S" bends are not better for most people. They are not. I think ski bend aerobars are better for most people. By better I mean more comfortable, safer, even faster because of the previous two reasons.

I think a significant part of the reason some people ride "S" bends is attributable to their popularity in the Tour de France and among the pros at Ironman. In this very thread one poster went to the trouble to assemble a montage of photos of the top riders from Ironman and every one of them was using "S" bends. It is pretty natural to assume that he is not the only one to conduct this survey. Based on that, it is pretty easy to understand why someone may opt for "S" bends, after all, the best pros at Ironman all use them.

I tried "S" bends. Many different types/brands/models. I'll probably try a few more kinds because I do think they look cool and I'm always up for trying something new new especially if there is a chance I can sell some and/or it can benefit my performance. As it is though, I don't think "S" bends are as good as ski bends. I think their popularity is mostly fashion, not so much function.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

That's a cool poster and Jan's position is really weird. Heck, no wonder the fella fell off his bike in that roundabout...

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

[reply]Here's a portuguese saying for you:
"You can't catch flies with vinegar"[/reply]

ahhhhhhhhhh now I understand you are portuguese.

FINALLY, someone else has figured this out!

I have some Profile Carbon Stryke bars with a "ski" bend. I LOVE them because they are so comfortable and make so much sense. They are the old non-internal cable routing version.

From a "power" perspective as noted in your article Tom, I don't believe you are actually correct in stating that the benefits of S bends are suited to TdF riders etc.
I don't see how they get any advantage. Sure they (riders) put out more power, and they ride shorter distances (so comfort is less of an issue) but I don't think the S bend actually has any benefit or advantage in this regard.

From an aero perspective, just looking at the hands, I'd suggest that as far as I can tell, with a normal slant to the human hand (hand is longer from the wrist to the index finger than wrist to pinky finger) that the ski bend is ideal since it allows the wrist to stay in a neutral position. The ski bend should be such that the top of the hand is horizontal and the angled knuckles (when viewed from the side) present an angled surface to the air, directing the air under the forearms (primarily) and under the aerobars.

On S bends, the wrist is in an extended postion, causing stress and discomfort with no apparent benefit. With the extended wrist position, the air goes up and over the forearms, probably equal to the air going under the arms in the example above, but, the fingers under the nearly flat aerobars will cause tubulence under the bars for a net increase in drag.

As for stability, both types of bars can be used to stabilize the body, and both types take hand and forearm muscle contraction to do so. The extended wrist action imposed by a S bend bar has no advantage in this regard IMHO.

I DO think many ski bend bars are too long however, accommodating the clenced hand, plus some amount sticking up essentially vertically into the airstream. To add to this, the shifters stick further in to the wind for increased drag. This un-necessary ski bend length also means the rider must move the hand up the bar to shift each time. I have cut down the amount of length on my ski bends so that with my shifters in place, the base part of the shifter is actually inside my clenched hand, with only the little lever part of the shifter exposed. This has some small aero benefit (offset by my aero drag my belly causes, but what the hell, but mainly assists with not having to move my hand for shifting. I also saved .00037g of carbon fibre aerobar weight as well, for much improved hill climbing ;-)

Cutting down my aero bars was a bit of a mission actually. The hole of the end of the ski bend is designed to fit a bar end shifter perfectly. When I cut down the ski bend, the aluminum form/support for the carbon bar got thicker, narrowing the hole for the shifter to be inserted. Bugger. My solution was to carefully grind down the outside of the expanding bolt of the shifter so it would fit in the smaller hole. There's tons on material aluminum there and minimal load on the shifter so there's no problem, but it was an unanticipated hassle to do one sunday afternoon.

For me comfort is the prime benefit for ski bends, but I believe the aero benefits (although minimal) are there too, all with no power loss. Don't be a slave to fashion and marketting, go with the best alternative, the ski bend, cut down to suit your hand size.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

There must be some progress-stopping reason behind the 5 cm rule, I am sure. I remember I read a UCI commissary manual once and it said if the rider is below a certain height (174 cm??? not sure) or has a shorter inseam than something, then a morphological exemption may be granted. Also a rider could get one for health reasons and this is where it becomes like the WADA exception for asthma medication. Pretty much everyone may claim they have a bad back or something...

If the whole thing is to prevent richer teams from obtaining an advantage by using superior equipment - no luck. Some teams still have superior equipment within the UCI rules framework - especially obvious in timed events. I don't want to mention brands so as not to completely hijack the thread but if two riders finish a 57 km TT within, say, 28 sec of each other, it makes one think what if different wheels, bike, helmet, etc were used. And of course: "What if the riders were free to do some educated tinkering with their positons?" is an even more obvious question.

Another thing is that richer teams can still afford the better riders, which is crucial in winning races more often than not. Yet there's no attempt to level the playing field there. In fact the more financially secure a team is the easier it is to obtain a Pro Tour license. Why not device some rule to prevent Discovery (or T-Mobile or Astana or CSC for this matter) from having a budget several times larger than Bouygues Telecom? Perhaps some folk at the UCI think athletes should only concentrate on pushing the pedals harder and leave the thinking to the governing body....

Everything I come across - scientific, semi-scientific, theoretical, computer generated, wind tunnel-tested, on-the-road-with-an-SRM-tested, anecdotal, etc., points to forearms being parallel to the ground as the most aerodynamic thing to do. Few sources, however, care to mention how much more aero than forearms up or down. Kris Boardman was cited by British Eurosport I, to have said that they tested with the British National Team and 'forearms up' was slower by 'forearms parallel to the ground' but not by a lot.

There are some wind tunnel veterans lurking on this forum, for fun I guess, who seem to confirm this. Landis was quoted in an article to have said that the staff at the San Diego wind tunnel have suggested "an even faster" position but his hip would hurt more in it and he needed to ride steeper ST (and still be within UCI limits) A very old German wind tunnel study (with someme obvious methodology and measuring equipment sensitivity issues) suggests that 'forearms up' affects overall drag negatively by a magnitude of about 3% at 0 degrees yaw. But it does not say how many degrees from horizontal 'forearms up' is....

I guess it would be important to control for the exact placement of elbows in all three dimensions in order to figure this one out. It is possible that one's whole upper body may move down a bit by tilting the extensions up. As a result a lower drag reading may be obtained but that may be the effect of lowering one's torso rather than the placement of forearms. I don't think a self-financed 1 hr session in a wind tunnel will be enough to get a definitive answer;)

 but they have been around way before 2004.....

The first photos I remember seeing of a rider with straight extensions were of Chris Boardman riding a Hotta, I believe. So that would have been somewhere between 1996 and 1999.

edit - not a great picture, but it looks like those extensions are straight to me. That's from 1997

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I like that you put the shots together...but it appears there's a large disconnect on how people get fit and how people ride with them.

All of these look comfy....

Look at the differences in the angle of the wrist between the first photo of Armstrong and the second. It seems like there is a pretty hefty difference there. It may just be how he is holding the bars when the photo was ahot, but nonetheless, interesting (at least to me...).

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Totally out of my league here, but as a former competitive tennis player, I can see that the "V" created by Lance's thumb and forefinger is at the 3:00 O'clock position in the first picture and at the 12:00 O'Clock position in the second picture.

When I get home tonight I'll try both hand positions and see if it makes a difference in comfort, control, etc.

BTW, the tennis reference is due to the fact that grips for the various strokes are found in relation to where the "V" is on the racket grip "clock".