| |
Main
Date: 30 Jun 2007 17:07:06
From: BigBenBiker
Subject: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
Hi All,
I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
harm lungs' function..
Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
performance?
Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
TIA,
bbb
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2007 04:37:43
From: Orin
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Jun 30, 10:07 am, go.s...@somewhere.else (BigBenBiker) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> harm lungs' function..
> Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> performance?
Also consider the tendency of many to climb with their hands towards
the center of the bars.
That and your points above make me believe the bar width should be
shoulder width 'rule' is BS. Like most other elements of bicycle
fitting, you should go with what's comfortable.
Orin.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 23:22:04
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
js has an interesting observation. I upgraded to an ergo bar at wider
than my shoulders from a steel 10 speed bar. As all upgrades from
10's, the wider bar was instant lung relief. Ahhhhhh suddenly its
spring time: boeing. Wow! breath deep.
butbutbut. I don't use an aerobar for aesthetic reasons but ride into
the occasional at 75 miles gale in aero postion.
and you know? I can't recall feeling out of breath or deeply involved
in a lactic crisis doing that?
maybe the lack of aero 02 causes memory or brain damage?
hmmmm...
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 09:08:06
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183332124.251336.224040@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> js has an interesting observation. I upgraded to an ergo bar at wider
> than my shoulders from a steel 10 speed bar. As all upgrades from
> 10's, the wider bar was instant lung relief. Ahhhhhh suddenly its
> spring time: boeing. Wow! breath deep.
> butbutbut. I don't use an aerobar for aesthetic reasons but ride into
> the occasional at 75 miles gale in aero postion.
> and you know? I can't recall feeling out of breath or deeply involved
> in a lactic crisis doing that?
> maybe the lack of aero 02 causes memory or brain damage?
> hmmmm...
>
>
I think that a person's physical build has a lot of influence on riding
comfort in the crouch.
For many years I was mostly riding off road. I had wide bars on my MTB and
noticed the difference when I got on my road bikes with 38cm and 40cm
bars. Breathing was much easier with the wider bars.
I have a 46" barrel chest and an 80cm shoulder width. I tried a set of
pair of 46cm bars on one bike but they felt a little to wide for a road
bike. I've switched all of my road bikes over to 44cm wide bars and
breathing is much easier.
I rode a bike with aero bars once and it felt like I was compressing my
chest and couldn't breath when in the crouch.
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 19:11:58
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
BigBenBiker wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> harm lungs' function..
> Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> performance?
>
> Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
>
> TIA,
> bbb
I really like shoulder-width bars for comfort, doesn't seem to affect
breathing. I also like aerobars, use them a lot, and don't find that
they affect breathing, either. I find it takes a while to get used to
the low position of aerobars, can't ride them for long stretches at
first. Once I'm acclimated though, I can ride them for an hour or two in
a very low position that feels pretty good. When set up right, they
really improve my steady top end speed on the flats.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 18:20:24
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Jun 30, 5:37 pm, go.s...@somewhere.else (BigBenBiker) wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:45:43 -0700, "andresm...@aol.com"
>
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >position as well as hammer. The hard part is that it requires some
> >shoulder flexibility. however, I have found that getting the shoulder
> >flexibility to handle a narrow position is not too hard for me. OTOH,
> >getting the hamstring and back flexibility to handle a low position is
> >much harder for me. If I haven't been riding with aerobars, my
>
> Ok, from what I understand you feel that you gain more from a narrower
> position, than from a lower one?
>
> >factor. I have done hill climbs and sometimes I stay on the aerobars.
> >I find that sometimes the advantage that you get from the aerobars are
> >good even for hill climbs. Even if wind is not a factor, you get good
> >leverage that seems to increase leg power.
>
> here you seem to get more advantage from the lower position...
>
> Could you please explain better?
>
> Thank you,
> bbb
I can get reasonably low, but getting much lower ends up hurting my
lower back. So, I stop when I am comfortable. Then, I try to bring my
arms close together to get narrower. You can get an aerodynamic
advantage by presenting a smaller profile to the wind. You can do this
by getting really low or by getting really narrow. Imagine a sheet of
paper. You can have an edge of the sheet facing forward. Now, it
doesn't matter if the edge is horizontal or vertical. The amount of
surface that faces forward is them same.
Regarding the leverage, when I have my arm on an aerobar, as my leg
goes down, my arm and hand create a stable based against which I can
pull, generating more torque with my leg. If I am reasonably
comfortable, and not uncomfortably low, when I am climbing I can stay
comfortable on the bars and generate a little more torque.
As you sit in front of your computer, imagine your leg pushing down
against the floor. Now, put your forearm flat on the table with the
hand facing forward. Imagine that you could grab something with your
hand as your arm is flat on the table and hold it firmly for
stability. You will probably notice that you can push a little harder
with your leg.
Aeorbars, not only make you more aero, but they create a very stable
surface against which you can push.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 14:45:43
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Jun 30, 11:07 am, go.s...@somewhere.else (BigBenBiker) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> harm lungs' function..
> Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> performance?
>
> Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
>
> TIA,
> bbb
I ride with aerobars a lot.To me, the ideal is more speed, with
comfort. I prefer to be high and narrow that low and wide. I've found
that I can tolerate a narrow arm position much better than a really
low position. Riding with my arms close together does not seem to
affect my breathing at all. In fact, i can cruise comfortably in this
position as well as hammer. The hard part is that it requires some
shoulder flexibility. however, I have found that getting the shoulder
flexibility to handle a narrow position is not too hard for me. OTOH,
getting the hamstring and back flexibility to handle a low position is
much harder for me. If I haven't been riding with aerobars, my
shoulders will hurt a little for a couple of rides. However, after
that, they don't hurt anymore.
I think that the fact that I am a good swimmer and do it a lot, gives
me some good shoulder flex and reasonably lower back flexibility to
reach a good compromise. Interference with my breathing has not been a
factor. I have done hill climbs and sometimes I stay on the aerobars.
I find that sometimes the advantage that you get from the aerobars are
good even for hill climbs. Even if wind is not a factor, you get good
leverage that seems to increase leg power.
Andres
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 23:37:47
From: BigBenBiker
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:45:43 -0700, "andresmuro@aol.com"
<andresmuro@aol.com > wrote:
>position as well as hammer. The hard part is that it requires some
>shoulder flexibility. however, I have found that getting the shoulder
>flexibility to handle a narrow position is not too hard for me. OTOH,
>getting the hamstring and back flexibility to handle a low position is
>much harder for me. If I haven't been riding with aerobars, my
Ok, from what I understand you feel that you gain more from a narrower
position, than from a lower one?
>factor. I have done hill climbs and sometimes I stay on the aerobars.
>I find that sometimes the advantage that you get from the aerobars are
>good even for hill climbs. Even if wind is not a factor, you get good
>leverage that seems to increase leg power.
here you seem to get more advantage from the lower position...
Could you please explain better?
Thank you,
bbb
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 14:15:54
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Jun 30, 11:04 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> BigBenBiker wrote:
> > I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> > width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> > Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> > always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> > the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> > elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> > harm lungs' function..
> > Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> > performance?
>
> > Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
>
> Chose a position for both that's comfortable & effective for you.
>
> As with crank length it's not 'what's best' but rather 'which do you
> prefer?'.
> ISTR that width, although hyped as affecting aerobic capacity, makes no
> difference in measured performance. Can't locate any relevant data -
> someone else recall ?
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Doesn't address this with specific data, but scroll down to
"uncomfortable positions" at:
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ventphys.htm
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 16:04:34
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
BigBenBiker wrote:
> I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> harm lungs' function..
> Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> performance?
>
> Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
Chose a position for both that's comfortable & effective for you.
As with crank length it's not 'what's best' but rather 'which do you
prefer?'.
ISTR that width, although hyped as affecting aerobic capacity, makes no
difference in measured performance. Can't locate any relevant data -
someone else recall ?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 23:48:11
From: BigBenBiker
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:04:34 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>Chose a position for both that's comfortable & effective for you.
>
>As with crank length it's not 'what's best' but rather 'which do you
>prefer?'.
Well, that way I'm more inclined to separate tri-bars - ne for the
left arm, another for the other side, set apart as much (or as little)
as you like. Like the Profile Jammer, for instance.
Thanks,
bbb
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 11:04:54
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Jun 30, 7:07 pm, go.s...@somewhere.else (BigBenBiker) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've always been taught that handlebar width should match shoulders'
> width, in order to allow the best functioning of the lungs.
>
> Yet, when I look at tri-bars, the position for resting the elbows is
> always a lot narrower than the above mentioned, and while I understand
> the advantage of a more aero position, I wonder if bringing your
> elbows just about together and resting on them while cycling, doesn't
> harm lungs' function..
> Or is the aero gain so great, that it makes up for some loss of lungs'
> performance?
>
> Can anybody enlighten me on this matter, please?
>
> TIA,
> bbb
Aspiration (breathing) is far from the weakest link in an endurance
sport. Even an untrained person's lungs have more than enough capacity
to provide more oxygen than a trained person's heart can deliver, so
even if the position does inhibit breathing a bit it shouldn't matter.
For what it's worth I have reasonably broad shoulders and even with my
elbows quite close together (limited by the limberness of my shoulder
muscles) I notice no hampered breathing while in the TT position. It
looks cramped but it's not. Whether it is comfortable in other ways is
a different story.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 23:29:53
From: BigBenBiker
Subject: Re: aero/tri bars width vs lungs' function??
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:04:54 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
>to provide more oxygen than a trained person's heart can deliver, so
>even if the position does inhibit breathing a bit it shouldn't matter.
>
>looks cramped but it's not. Whether it is comfortable in other ways is
>a different story.
Ok, so breathing not being a major problem by how close your elbows
are, I'm still considering the kind of tri-bars that you can mount how
far apart as you like - one "bar" for the left arm, and another one
for the other side.
By being able to further lower my upper body, I'm improving
aerodynamics, and being able to rest the upper body weight on the are
near the elbows might be a welcome change from punishing my carpal
tunel "syndromed" hands.
I am missing something in this reasoning?
Do the arms/elbows need to be as close as possible for the best
aerodynamics?
Thank you!
bbb
|
|
