Other Resources > Component Deals & Selection

Separate set - narrow handlebars and low stem - for internal routing

<< < (3/5) > >>

obuwiecieplezimowe:

--- Quote from: coffeebreak on August 27, 2024, 11:33:55 AM ---What rim brake calipers are those?

--- End quote ---

Planet-X, Fouriers or probably many more brands. A generic design.

dsveddy:

--- Quote from: Sakizashi on August 27, 2024, 02:18:34 PM ---Oops sorry for the late reply.

It's not as stiff, probably, though I never saw the data, so it's more of a theoretical discussion. The big difference is in the shape of the bar itself. The Bikedoc HB24 has 3mm more drop and no rise on the ramps. Your shifters mount ~7mm lower as a result. You also have more flare and more wrist clearance when sprinting or climbing out of the saddle in the drops. Shape-wise, it’s a wider / road-adapted version of a modern bunch bar from the track. There is some overlap in size, with the 34cm size being very similar to what you would see as the wider end of track bars. The rejected design, the one from EC90, is a more traditionally shaped road bar that is narrower, so shrunken in one dimension.

The question was, if you had no funding for research, whose shoulders do you stand on? Track bars where the narrow position is proven, but the shifter/bar interface is trickier? Or road bars where the shifter/bar interface is more known, but the ergonomics of designing around a narrow aero hood position and sprinting in the drops on a narrow bar is still taking shape? Given that most of the narrower than the old but well-loved Enve SES Aero bars are track-style designs, I was biased toward a track-style bar.

You also have the divots for the wrist (their idea, not mine) vs. not having them, which forces the wrist inside the ramps like they are on the Enve SES Aero bars. The divots work well and allow a more natural angle for the arms and wrists when in the aero hood position. I pushed a little for more reach on the bar, but that was rejected. :(

I also had no trouble with the hose routing, which could have been due to the extra 2mm of bar thickness.

TLDR; Bikedoc HB24 should be stiffer,  but the difference is the shape being an adapted (wider) track bar vs a small width road bar.

--- End quote ---

@Sakizashi since you're in the biz, I wanted to throw out the question: any idea how long we should expect it to take for integrated-stem designs to start showing up? I know probably not for a while, since the western brands haven't even started making them. But I was curious if you had any insight into what's driving new products.

bremerradkurier:
Cable conduits in integrated handlebars would be a huge improvement.

Sakizashi:

--- Quote from: dsveddy on August 28, 2024, 09:15:08 AM ---@Sakizashi since you're in the biz, I wanted to throw out the question: any idea how long we should expect it to take for integrated-stem designs to start showing up? I know probably not for a while, since the western brands haven't even started making them. But I was curious if you had any insight into what's driving new products.

--- End quote ---

Feels weird to say "in the biz," since it feels more like dipping a toe in the water as this is a side gig. That said, the barrier here is that to make integrated bars that are narrow but still fit people using bike frames currently on the market. We are looking at a +30mm to +40mm shift in stem length due to reach and the change in arm position. If you had a range of narrow bars with stem lengths going from 120mm to 180mm, I wonder how many people would buy them or how to forecast demand. However, this same issue is why I don't own the rights to this design, so if I do another design, I need to either roll the dice or find a way to get comfortable with it.

Bike fitting is also such a tradition-driven pseudo-science that it will take a while for people to realize what works and doesn't. I think there is also a question of whether some riders should be going back to their "designed" frame size vs. sizing down or even sizing up in some cases. In addition, bars this narrow turn design on their head a little bit. These bars are narrow enough that most people can either touch or almost touch their thumbs from the aero hood's position, so the rider's position limits the impact of integration and aero design. You also have a bike computer up front in most cases, and these bars are wider at the hoods than the TooT or Worx designs. I would be shocked if there is much to gain from integration, which is probably why integrated designs aren't emerging faster.

With all that said, I am slowly sketching options for a v2 version of this bar that I want to own the molds. I am still deciding if it should stop at doing the routing like Cervelo / the new Zipp bar or if it makes sense to design a stem system / integrated one-piece solution. Protecting the design long enough for me not to lose money is another problem, but I will cross that bridge when I get there.

elmtree:
I imagine non integrated stem will be a better user experience because people might not realize how long they need to go.

I have the non-bikedoc ones coming right now. We'll see how they are. I personally would want the same hoods, but more flare. More drag, but at least sprinting might be a bit easier. I do wonder if more flare would lean the levers in too far though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page