@marcag We’ve chatted about the reason so many pros are using these crazy expensive aerobars is due to 3 reasons:
To safely achieve pad stack/reach unobtainable with stock bike/bar geometries.
Comfort
Aerodynamics.
in that order.
If we look at the extender plate solutions needed to get affordable aerobars to achieve the pad stack/reach so many riders are needing for a comfortable and hi-performance bike fit, these solutions just are not safe (these by Velobike look like the exception)
And while the Tetsuo Masamune are relatively affordable and have a safe system for connecting the bars to the bike, I’m not aware of any other affordable solutions. So, I guess when I see complaints that the bars the pros are using are too expensive, I first realize that more affordable options will arrive due to market demand, in the same way that more affordable wheel options are available, but I also see a problem with railing against these expensive bar manufacturers when they’re actually responsible for creating a safe solution for people to achieve pad stack/reach when the frame manufacturers seem to be failing consumers in that area. I’m grateful for Evolve, Speedbar, Speeco and Uniquo Custom creating solutions that are safe and effective at allowing our riders to achieve their ideal pad stack/reach.
It’s similar to what’s happening in gravel with wider tires. Everybody is very quickly moving to 50mm or wider and frames need to accommodate. But the grand development process is pretty slow, next year’s models are already in production, best case 2026 see a complete revamp on some brands/models.
Same thing here, fundamentally the reach on frames is too short for modern tri set up. Not only will it take at least one production cycle to catch up, it’s also an issue that the stretched position is not something most AGs are likely to gravitate towards. It’s less comfortable.
Plates are a good stop gap solution, trying to make them lightweight is dumb, but the strength of the plate can only be viewed in relation to the strength of the frame/fork, specifically the steerer tube, or steerer tube equivalent.
So, definitely not advocating for the stretched position.
When you look at Sam, Trevor, Rudy in Kona this year, Magnus - they’re really not that stretched and they’re pretty high, so I suggest they’re in positions most amateurs would find more comfortable
100% agree. This goes back to Dan’s article on t-shirt sizing in bikes.
This again falls back on the bike manufacturers. When someone who is 5’8" sees XL as the frame size needed to achieve their pad stack/reach, they do not trust the fitter. (also, try finding geometries on most manufacturer web pages nowadays - you have to dig, and its not common they provide pad stack/reach)
And, large frame sizes come with huge headtubes, and sometimes the inability to achieve low enough saddle height. So… just sizing up is not necessarily the answer.
To be honest, if a fitter told me (and I am 5’10") that I needed an XL, I wouldn’t trust him either.
I believe taller riders that pick bikes made for UCI regulations will have a harder time.
But there also a whole lots of AGers, and several pros, who are getting into positions without even knowing if those positions are ideal. There are pros signing bike deals with sponsors, for bikes that don’t fit them. There are AGers buying bikes without knowing what optimal size is. I am not sure expensive bars solve any of these problems.
This definitely is not applicable to the pros we work with, nor the AG’s we work with, so not sure how applicable this is in general. I see tons of AG’s sending over videos on bikes that fit, but the bike just does not provide adequate pad stack/reach; simple as that. These bars solve that problem, really well actually.
And also worth noting: these riders are typically seeking 6cm in additional pad reach and 4-6cm in pad stack. When there is a larger frame available, it does not natively provide that additional pad stack/reach, so the rider ends up needing an aftermarket solution, regardless of going to an XL frame, if they aren’t already on that frame size.
I would say the majority of AGers would be better served finding what is “optimal” then buying a bike that fits that trying to extend a poorly sized bike with expensive cockpits, even worse, without even verifying if it buys you something.
If you are Rudy, Sam and Magnus, you are pushing the size limits. But they are the exception, not the rule.
I looked at Rudy’s setup, I don’t see what an expensive cockpit is helping on the fit side of things.
If the conversation is “do we need more frame sizes”, I would say yes. Do expensive cockpits solve the problem, not always, I’d say seldom.
If we talk aerodynamics, other than getting the person in the right position, I’d say not much. If we say comfort, there are ways to get confortable on less expensive solutions
I’m being redundant here, so my apologies and respectfully:
The AG’s who send me videos to help with fit will not be able to size up or switch to a different brand and resolve their need for additional pad reach/stack. So, the claim that the AG’s are merely on the wrong bike is not resolving the issues we are seeing.
Rudy, Sam and Magnus are the norm and not the exception with the AG’s we are seeing. Even if a 5’10" rider goes to an XL frame, they most often cannot achieve the optimal pad stack/reach, and separately, the fitter severely risks losing that customer making such a suggestion, and that huge of a headtube does not pass the eyeball windtunnel.
When I fit Rudy to his new Factor, we needed a custom spacer to achieve reach the Hanzo does not natively provide. We could achieve the stack, but the further you raise the monoriser on the Hanzo, you lose reach due to the riser following the hta.
(we didn’t have time to print one prior to Kona, but here’s the printed spacer that achieves these same additional reach as what he used in Kona, that we’re installing now).
The spacer costs over $700. It is mated to the bars. Yes, like the velobike solution I linked to in the OP, the spacer alone could be the solution. At this time, that spacer solution is not available without the bar. In the OP I wrote that I do think the market will respond and create more affordable options, and more spacers like the one Rudy is using are a great option - but the reality is that for him and others, that spacer was only available with the expensive bar.
So, the issue is not simply being on the wrong size bikes. We’re just in a time and place and during this time and place, achieving optimal positions on the bike come at a price. That will soon change. But for now, these bars serve a very real purpose, even if its because they create access to these custom spacers.
Thread title is a discussion, so can I ask a couple of questions, these from a non expert viewpoint compared to those on the thread already.
Note I am also an outlier in that at 6’4" I had choice of M, L or XL Speed Concept, went for L with the pads in the upper third of the height range, and about middle reach adjust. Saddle is near max, so still a lot of drop.
I note I am not in the low and long body shape where based on ST threads 80% seem to be. But. specific to this thread, I’m thinking like this. 10-20 years ago the rule was that the upper arms were at 90 degrees to torso, then you had your forearms around about horizontal. So torso weight supported with no work, ‘aero’ as air not hitting arms. Aim was to get the entire rider rotated as much as possible so saddle close to directly above BB, leading to flatish back and not pinching hips. (massively simplified). Last few years then smarter people than me worked out that it’s better to not have the air hitting the chest, and so instead of hiding the hands/arms from wind, then get them to break the wind by raising them up. To do that then with all other things being equal the elbows have gone forward. And that’s why bikes are suddenly too short for people. Or, if they get the length they go up asize, the top tube is higher and then they have little height difference from saddle to top of top / headtube. The comments on more sizes makes sense to a degree, ie having not just S, M, L but Medium long and medium short. The issue here is that bikes more complex now and moulds costly, so manufacturers can’t get return on all that specific sizing hence need to use the contact points to do the adjusting not the frame.
And that’s where adjustability vs durability vs lightweight vs affordable is a problem without an overlapping point solution.
I don’t think they need more molds for manufacturing, they just need more frame reach and ability for additional pad stack/reach.
Dan and Jordan wrote about orthodoxy, and we’re seeing the same thing now in terms of a consensus in positions on the bike. write about that here a bit: Your Bike Fit Begins With Your Saddle — Wove
I actually think we could take measurements of good fits across different body heights and create 3 frame sizes that fit everyone using a smart front end solution that doesn’t require too many parts for the manufacturer to provide.
I agree until we get there, extenders can play a big role. I would like to see these extenders come from the manufacturers. I went through the whole “too little reach/extenders/move to UCI bike that has more reach/you can’t use the UCI bike”. At the end of the day the fastest solution was a Canyon extender and an Aerocoach cockpit.
What I would hate is for people to think the only way they are going to get optimal is with expensive cockpits. That’s just wrong IMO.
PS : it’s funny, the site says “You’ve replied to @Nick_wovebike 3 times, did you know you could send them a personal message instead?”. I guess it doesn’t understand the concept of a forum.
Agreed and I do my best not to push AG’s to pay for more stuff, but try to push to do the most cost effective thing to achieve the best position on the bike. The Velobike spacers and Tetsuo bars have been good in that regard, as have the Radsport spacers for Canyon.
I like what you are doing. Maybe there is an need to update some of the fit philosophies out there.
And I do believe there has to be an effort to incorporate more aero testing in the process. I have tried elsewhere, but there wasn’t much openness to the idea.
I do agree with that. the fits of the pros we work with speak to that philosophy, and if AG’s imitate the positions of Sam, Trevor, Rudy, LCB, Skipper, Magnus, Geens, that’s maybe the best we can do in addition to making a saddle that best aids that philosophy.
In Ronan’s favorite things of 2024, he speaks to that philosophy being one of his favorite things:
“Can a philosophy be a favourite product? Probably not, but bear with me here. While the Mags is a lightweight, comfortable, one-piece carbon fibre saddle, I include it here as much for how it helped me rethink saddle position and the saddle’s role in bike fitting and performance rather than solely for the saddle itself.” article here
To safely achieve pad stack/reach unobtainable with stock bike/bar geometries.
On what basis are you judging safety?
Velobike guy lives 500m from me and I’ll soon be building a house about 100m from him so I really should have a discussion about this with him. I would expect his adaptor to overload a lot of riser-basebar interfaces as it is too stiff. Even before you use it for extra reach.
The product itself I expect will be well made (he’s a good engineer) but unless it is tested as a system you can’t extrapolate that safety.
And then we get on to the flat plate cnc’ed extenders which are unlikely to pass testing on their own, let alone as a system.
It’s not that easy to make safe, highly adjustable aerobars. There are major brands that fare poorly against the PD standard (which reflects real world experience).
The problem is that, if we take a 175cm tall person the 95% CI on torso length variation is 120mm, before we take into account preferences on effective STA and arm reach or proportions. So we need a 200mm range of x adjustment on bars to cover the majority of people. Most bike brands only give ~60mm of that with frame sizing.
Bike manufacturers have not been working towards this. Few of them understand what their tri bikes are meant to achieve.
On the PD front, long development times and maintaining backwards compatibility are factors in speed of response. As much as possible I’m trying to allow riders to improve their old bikes rather than be forced into new ones.
However, at this point the current platforms can’t be added to much more. So the next generation will have zero backwards compatibility in order to meet all the requirements. (existing product will continue to be supported).
If all goes well, that’s looking like 2027.
Until then, there are further enhancements coming for the existing platforms. Which will be safe - tested as complete systems up to the extremes of possible adjustment.
Just to be clear. I agree with you about the limitations of current bikes and the list of bikes I recommend is extremely short. Where I disagree is on judging low volume products as safe. ISO testing is no where near adequate for aerobars.
I have machined my own aero fit parts before and trust some of them equally or more than OEM. I ride a frame “too big” but largely the consequence is not having a mile of stack spacing that is the current UCI TT “norm”. I am too slow for that to matter.
What the aero sensor and tests conclude, I do.
Just a hobbyist. Not a lot of training time to show. Just for fun.
I have new toys to test soon (modern aero helmets).
