Who made the reach extenders ?
Were they tested with that specific base bar ?
Speedbar printed them and they’re bar-specific and structurally sound, not a pieced together solution
They’re the same risers you saw in person during the aero testing you did last year for Trevor
After hearing the stories of Jeroen’s fatigue testing I wonder about many bars out there. Cyclenutz has been warning us for a while on the need to test ‘the whole system’. Personally I am going to a PD bar, PD risers/extenders with PD extensions ESPECIALLY when extra reach is sought.
1 Like
This is why I used a 61cm Tempus for this build: Seen at Sea Otter: A Special Ventum Build at the Wove Saddles Booth - Slowtwitch News
Choose the frame by the stack and reach.
note: 35mm of profile spacers were added under the Wattshop spacer once the bike was set up
Looking at the pictures this appears to be a piece of carbon attached to exisiting extensions (Speedbar?). I was told to remove a molded piece of carbon from my bike that was molded around the bars (yes, it was a fairing). But when this piece of carbon is molded and glued on at a factory that is okay? Is the purpose of the rule that fairings are allowed only if added by the manufacturer?
IM and WT really worked themselves into a corner by allowing so much creep in their interpretation. First it’s ok a to have an aero shaped bottle Then it’s not a fairing to put nutrition/hydration into aero shaped carriers. Then by comparison it’s not a fairing if that nutrition carrier fills gaps between arms. Then it can’t be a fairing if you have the same “nutrition carrier” that’s just a plate under the bars. Now it’s not a fairing if what used to be a nutrition carrier has winglets on it to shape airflow and no nutrition carried at all.
They had 100 chances to draw a line but always kept it up to individual official’s interpretations.
1 Like
But if this ‘fairing’ really works, couldn’t we learn how strategically shaping even separate extensions could be beneficial ?
1 Like
Yeah 100%. Fully onboard with optimizing aerodynamics within the rules. Not a fan of having to guess if your new equipment will be allowed. My first intuition is that an air deflector that far away from the rider’s legs is going to be very position-dependent, but would love to see real world testing.
TBH the interpretation of the rule pretty much seems to be: Appearance of being made professionally = OK, Appearance of being homemade = Not OK.
If this new piece didn’t have Velovetta stickers, was glued on with white epoxy and little bits of glue overflow that weren’t cleaned up, and was made of ABS plastic instead of carbon would it still be allowed? Functionally it’s the exact same piece, but we all kind of know the answer.
2 Likes
Subscribed
1 Like
I hope “strakes” don’t become a thing (very clearly a fairing IMO). Ultimately we’ll end up with some overly complex regulation that bans them…along with a bunch of collateral damage to other, existing designs in a replay of the hydration rules.
[color=hotpink]Joe Skipper is already busy bolting two aero bottles under his bar to form a strake.[/color]
1 Like
I plan to drop them lower and lower until they cover the front wheel.
“Honey I need a bigger printer”…
No but seriously, this could be interesting if they do work. Any ideas welcome.
1 Like
Adding embossed text to trip the airflow? 
(jk, probably wouldn’t help)
3 Likes
Serious question, you say they are ‘structurally sound’ , how do you know this? By looking at them or did they passed a real test, like the EFBE norm?
Even the ISO is not even close enough to consider safe.
I think we have way too much untested stuff in reach extenders, aerobars and other printed stuff.
When we did EFBE testing on the bar incl. reach hardware from the Avenger bike it failed miserably and still it will be going to the market although not with the reach hardware because it passed the ISO norm.
I talked to another brand that is on insta a lot and sells reach extenders and print bars if they test any of their parts. Answer was no, just computer simulation fatigue stress and they sell to everybody without knowing if their hardware is strong enough and people don’t have a clue if their base bar is strong enough to hold all that force.
Since i have a few of the proto’s of the Avenger bikes i now know that the geo works, what can be improved and we are currently in the process of designing a whole new bike, different factory, makes stuff for some of the major brands but we are going to test everything independently incl’ reach hardware highest amount of spacers to pass EFBE norm. It will not be on the market before it passes and only the testing alone costs thousands of dollars. But we are talking safety here from our and other riders.
Jeroen
4 Likes
Hi Jeroen,
A number of these points were already discussed up above, including a proposal for an improved ISO test. I hear you loud and clear, and regularly.
I am not the manufacturer of these bars, but I do know that the manufacturer does test their products in-house. Ping Edwin for more info - he’s close to you. We’re confident that these aluminum printed risers + basebar under this rider are safe. These are not remotely similar to the extension plates you’re referencing, which are really sketchy. I appreciate your demand for more transparency. Let’s push for safety, not paternalistic rules that hurt innovation.
These bars do have less movement over rough roads than the independent extensions alone. I do agree safety should be prioritized - my own saddles surpass the ISO load by 45% in the 200k rep fatigue test, and my carbon comes with a lifetime warranty.
I also think it’s interesting for alarms to be raised over mono bars but shoes that take minutes off of marathon times, disc wheels that takes 5+ watts off, helmet fairings, deep wheels, aero frame shaping etc are accepted. Let us innovate … safely.
It’s not even the extensions that are the most worrying part. They’re the furthest part of the cantilever arm from the fulcrum.
Base bars are built with certain extension length design criteria, adding 10cm of extenders and super long aero skis could quickly put you past the safety margin.
The stem/steerer tube interface is another worry. It’s unlikely to fail catastrophically from a single impact, but having an unbeveled stem bottom digging into a carbon steerer with the weight of a rider 500mm+ is surely beyond the intended use and is more likely to slowly cut into the steerer tube.
When I am specifying the coordinates for custom printed risers for pro athletes, I don’t go more than 60 mm forward. I’m confident that’s safe under these relatively light weight pros
I would really like to see some of these pros on larger frames, but that is a bit of an uphill battle because there is a mindset around smaller frames handling better. I don’t completely agree with that, and overtime, maybe I can nudge some of these pros to go up a size.
Pros like Sam, Rudy, and Magnus are already on the largest size frame, so this goes to the discussion that we have been having for a couple of years now about the need for frames to have a longer reach.
I would so much rather see energy that is currently being put towards rules on top of rules on top of rules and highly selective/biased discussion of fairings, put towards proper geometry of bike frames and safety standards.
1 Like
I’m also confident that short extensions are safe for light weight rides, but we really shouldn’t be relying on the uncalculated confidence of intuition.
I always laugh about how smaller frames handle better in tri’s. They’re much more nimble and they are so inspiring to ride thru corners, but they’re also twitchy and less stable. Why wouldn’t you want a tri bike that maximizes straight line stability in sacrifice of corner entry quickness? I personally ride a (equivalent of) 52 Crit bike and 56 tri bike.
@rrheisler a front page article with @cyclenutnz and @TRIPRO on their experience of testing these bars for safety would be amazing!
2 Likes
That is underway
60mm is pushing it without complete system testing. On that note - don’t let anyone double up the PD reach extenders.