Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options?
Quote | Reply
Short and sweet is that my "free" basebar that I modified worked long enough to get me used to the bike and to fiddle a little bit with position.

Now. This bar is an old rectangular bar profile HED base bar. Aero brick. It's also 5:1 or more so nowhere close to being friendly for a state TT competition.

It seems that the new tech is in getting low stack in the head tube and having that whole bit lower, then adding stack back in with risers on the integrated base bars.

Since this is a Bayonet, I can't really slam a stem on it like you could a bike with a normal headset. I'm limited by the rotation on the splined Felt stem once the stem bottoms out in the front..

What are my best affordable options for a basebar/pad/extension setup for low stack?

This is TT only, so 3:1 is preferred BUT only need it to be comfortable for up to an hour. Hence, low stack. I'm buying a new shorter stem from Felt for like $20, so I won't need uber adjustability.

This is the bike:


Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:
It's also 5:1 or more so nowhere close to being friendly for a state TT competition.

What state?
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NC/SC and is USAC.

I know some of the picky details of it aren't super looked at in slower categories, but, I have to replace this bar anyway.

I drilled the old bar to attach the cups and really don't like them anymore for a variety of reasons. I just figure that if I'm buying a new bar, I may as well get one that is 3:1 while I'm at it.

I'm not buying a new bar because the one I have isn't 3:1. I want one because what I have doesn't work anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
USAC has no rules at all about bar geometry. 5:1 is fine. E.g. TriRig or other bars are totally legal.

Edit: The exceptions are events that also follow UCI rules, like some national championships. But no state TT follows UCI rules to my knowledge.
Last edited by: trail: May 28, 19 6:56
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don’t have an answer, but just a side note that old Hed basebar is very fast for its time.

Compares very favourably to old vision aluminum and Ventus.

ETA: that bar iirc is legal as the longer aspect is necessary due to the extra structural bit in front of the stem, it tapers pretty quick to 3:1. Or at least it was legal.

Maurice

http://www.multisportsolutions.com
Last edited by: mauricemaher: May 28, 19 7:03
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, really?

Interesting.

I had assumed looking at it that it wouldn't be very good. The leading edge of the bar isn't much of a wing shape, kind of a rounded off rectangle.

Here's a better picture:

Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
....trying to find the thread from 10 years ago.

Stand by,

http://www.multisportsolutions.com
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Older Bayonet fork, low stack ideas or options? [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mauricemaher wrote:
According to older cervelo data very fast:

http://www.aeroweenie.com/...img/data/aerobar.png

Maurice

Well then. I stand corrected.

I didn't know about that part of the bar being considered structure for the pads, so wasn't considered for the "wing" aspect ratio.

For now then, I think I'll try to find just a shorter stem for it and give it a shot. That's like $25. I can swing that.
Quote Reply