Leisure riding position
Mon, March 28, 2011 
As someone who has spent their life around bikes, seeing one set up in the manner shown above offends me greatly in the same way socks and sandals would offend a fashion expert.
Dropped handlebars on a road bike should never be higher than the saddle, unless the rider is either homeless or handicapped in some way. I would rather see this bike set up as a hybrid with flat handlebars than looking like this.
I can understand a person who rides a bike solely for exercise and recreation, does not need an extreme, horizontal back, racing position. However, there has to be a compromise between an all out racing position and the one pictured above.
It seems that most newcomers to cycling can only see one way to sit with their back at the desired angle, and that is to raise the handlebars higher and higher until the back angle is achieved. This can cause all kinds of other issues, in addition to offending exframebuilders like me.
With the handlebars this high the rider is sitting down hard on the saddle; a newcomer to the sport is going to have a sore butt until they become accustomed, this will only add to the problem. What follows is the owner going out to buy a saddle upholstered like a Lazy-Boy armchair.
Setting up a road bike is really about performance with an acceptible degree of comfort. If absolute comfort is your goal, forget the road bike and buy a Beach Cruiser.
With a road bike it is akin to buying a Formula 1 race car then trying to convert it to a family minivan. In the end you achieve niether comfort or performance.
The modern racing saddle is not designed to support your full weight; think of it more as a lectern to rest your butt against while riding. A rider’s weight needs to be distributed between the saddle, the pedals, and the handlebars.
To explain further what we are trying to achieve here, imagine sitting in a chair, (Not hard to do, you are probably sitting in one as you read this.)
Now imagine you are rowing a boat with your arms horizontal, and your hands level with your shoulders. Not an efficient rowing position; your arms and back are doing all the work, and your legs are doing nothing.
Backache is almost sure to happen. To row a boat you need your feet to be out in front of your seat thrusting horizontally in direct opposition to your arms. Even if the seat and foot rest are fixed the legs still act as a firm anchor for your arms and back to pull against.
Think of riding a bicycle as rowing a boat in reverse; it is your legs doing all the work. But what are your arms doing? Are they just resting idly on the handlebars, much in the way your legs were resting idly on the floor in my first scenario of rowing a boat in a chair position?
When you are making an effort on a bicycle you are thrusting down on the pedals with more than your body weight; the only thing holding you down are you hands grasping the handlebars. Your hands and arms need to be positioned to act as a firm anchor, just as your legs did while rowing a fixed seat boat.
Look at the picture above, this would be a good position for a leisure rider. He looks comfortable, even though he appears to be making a fair amount of effort. His back is at about 45 degrees; his arms are slightly bent at the elbow.
I would ask this rider, “How does your position feel?” If it felt good I would advise he leave it alone; based on the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
However, if he had problems like back ache, either lower back, or at the base of the neck between the shoulder blades; I would suggest buying a shorter handlebar stem and flipping it over so the bars are lower, but closer.
Also he might rotate the handlebars so the bottom part of the drops is tipped forward just a few degrees from horizontal. This would have the effect of lowering the brake lever hoods, and would bring the arms more into direct opposition the legs without changing the upper body position. (See above.)
You don’t need to keep raising the bars to achieve a comfortable back angle. You can achieve the same by leaving the handlebars low, but shortening the reach. Signs that your position is wrong are back ache as I have described, and constantly sliding forward on the saddle.
Sometimes a saddle is set too far back to achieve Knee Over Pedal (KOP) resulting to too much reach; then the handlebars are raised to compensate. KOP is less important than a good overall positition; no need to go to extremes measuring with plumb lines, etc; the important thing is, “Are your arms working in opposition to your legs?”
It is an easy matter to sit on your bike, lean against a wall for support, and have someone take your picture. Make sure your cranks are horizontal; then draw lines as I did from the hip joint to the pedal, and the shoulder joint to the hands. The lines will not be exactly parallel but if they fall within those shown in the above picture you will not be far away.
With your arms lower you place some of your upper body weight on them, relieving that which was previously all on the saddle. With your hands closer you are more likely to ride with your elbows bent, arms are relaxed and there is less strain on the shoulder muscles.
Remember, listen to your body, it will tell you if your position is right.
Addendum
By the comments that followed this post, many cannot see that on the bike pictured at the top with a shorter stem (Pointing slightly down instead of up.) the rider would have the exact same back angle, but with better weight distribution. Plus the bike would look 100% better. The arms and hands have simply rotated to a lower, but closer position. The shoulders and the rest of the upper body have remained in the same place.
Reader Comments (36)
Dave, I have been reading this blog for quite a while and have always enjoyed what you have had to say, until now. I also read a lot of other stuff, my biggest influence has been elements of the philisophy at www.Rivbike.com the recommendation there is that the bars are level with the saddle. While I don't disagree with your saddle comment they also recommend comfier saddles. I have gradually been moving towards a shorter stem and higher bars and I like the result. The beauty and functionality of dropped bars and the number of positions they offer should not be dismissed, recommending flat handlebars in order to avoid this set-up offending your fashion sense defines the tone of this article. Flat handlebars will have done more harm to the wrists of the people who use them than any other fashion invention in cycling history. The range of pulled back bars, which leave wrists at the correct angle and which emerged with the safety bicycle are difficult to buy solely because they are unfashionable. Yet are better than anything in terms of comfort - if you want to avoid dropped bars.
The word homeless is similarly unhelpful. A little less emotion and a bit more thought would have meant a constructive article instead of a rant.
By the way, I understood the KOPS was a sales technique to sell a smaller range of frames to a wider range of people. I have a preference for older bicycles (50's and 60's - an Archie Wilkinson is a gem) some with more laid back frame angles, but do not like the handling of my 30's Raleigh because it does indeed steer like a wheelbarrow. However I have watched seat tube angles move forwards towards the vertical with articles justifying each degree. In many cases the purpose has only been to sell the latest range.
Similarly your invention of the longer stem which put the bars over the centre of the wheel has become normalized and until you wrote this article it may not have occurred to people that they could use a shorter stem.
Peter,
I knew this would offend the "Sit up an Beg" element. If I try to please everyone here, I end up pleasing no one, least of all myself.
It is my opinion. This doesn't mean I am right and Rivendell are wrong, it is just a different opinion. I always advise take all opinions and from that form your own.
The reference to a homeless person is a joke; lighten up. Also if I rant about something you can be sure I am passionate about it. Constructive without passion is Bicycling Magazine; that is not what I want to be. To imply that I put little thought into a post hurts a little; I actually put a lot of thought into everything I write here.
Most of my previous articles on the subject have been aimed at a racing position, this one is about leasure riding. One has to compromise somewhere, do you want to set up for aerodynamics and perfect handling, or make sacrifices for a little more comfort?
I also implied that if your current set up suits you, don't mess with it.
Dave
Dave, I really appreciate your insight.
One question, though: it always seemed to me that people with too short stems will tend to rotate their handlebars forward to get the desired reach when in the bend or hook of the bars. That, to me, would explain the awkward set-up of the rider in the picture. Any thoughts?
Jan
I realized on my first tour that what was comfortable for two miles in the city was torture on mile 60. Despite being a not particularly fast rider my preferences have tended toward less padding at every point of contact, and a level-back riding position. Unfortunately the cycling world seems not to share my opinions; have you tried to find a pair of shorts without padding lately?
Dave - excellent article. I wholeheartedly agree, socks with sandals are an abomination, just like that bike.
Allow me to apologize for the lack of thought comment, there was a fair bit of emotion in my reponse which was no doubt a reaction to the fashion aspect of the article so I didn't fully appreciate the constructive tips at the end. As for wearing socks with sandals, I understand completely why people do it yet it offends others for reasons that escape me. It's a case of function versus appearance and it's received opinion that determines what that should be.
I agree with Peter's comments. It seems that over the past few years you've become rather the opposite of a cycling advocate, and lately, an automobile apologist. I cannot comprehend why you would put the owner of that Specialized on a beach cruiser when there are plenty of road bikes DESIGNED for the riding position this fellow seems to be after. It seems rather reactionary and caustic given that Rivendell, Surly, Salsa, etc. all have sensible options. I wonder now if the socks and sandals comment was a direct dig at Grant Peterson. And if so, WHY?
Personally, I LOVE to see people, including the homeless (who are indeed people, and who don't deserve to be the butt of a cycling joke) on bikes and am glad to offer constructive criticism of a set up, if solicited. From reading your blog, I can only gather you'd prefer to see less cyclists out there, as we tend to offend your taste, and scare motorists.
FWIW, my bikes are set up with the bars at or below saddle height, so, no, I'm not taking this personally. I just find it to be in bad taste (even though there is a bit of useful information offered). But not quite as bad as the time you made fun of the "hipster" with a rather nice track bike, which he RODE (bars well below the saddle, if I recall correctly), who was featured in a movie about how he lost his dog to cancer.
Dave, I fully agree with you, although your "homeless or handicapped" comment may evoke the ire of the PC Police. Personally, I ride down on the drops maybe 1% of the time nowadays, since I don't race anymore. I suppose drop bars are mostly a fashion statement on road bikes that are not raced, just like those "spoilers" on the trunk lids of cars, but that does not mean that we need to ride down on the drops anymore than we need to drive down the freeway at over 100 mph.
I have a lot of respect for Dave. I bought into his frame philosophy, literally, back in 1986. Based on his recommendation, I rode a 58cm Fuso (a small 58 based on his measurement to the top of the seat lug not the top of seat tube). Even with my Cinelli stem at max height, My handlebars were 4 inches below my saddle. Even as I pounded myself into shape and got very fit, I rarely rode on the drops. They were just too low.
From my limited perspective, I see two main problems with this article: the assumption that we are all racers or even wannabe racers, and the resultant idea of bike fit that comes from that. I had a racing license from 1978-1992. Before and after those dates I commuted, toured, and generally enjoyed riding for fitness and overall sanity. Racing was fun but doesn't fully define my cycling. Dave has built touring bikes, so he is aware that there are other ways to enjoy the bike. Yet in this article, he is telling us again the racer position is what we should strive for. (An earlier article about handlebar height still advocated I should be on a bike with my handlebars 4 inches below my saddle.)
I am 54 years old now. It was a revelation for me to read Grant Peterson's articles about bicycle fit. From there I have learned that the Knee over Pedal idea is faulted at best and that my bike position has nothing to do with gravity
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
I also learned that the shrunken modern racing frame is a very recent concept. That the racers in the 30s-40s-50s rode much larger frames, but the racing position hasn't changed very much over the decades.
http://ruedatropical.com/2010/06/bike-fit-from-coppi-to-contador/
I have learned that my handlebars at or slightly above saddle height allows me to have a much larger variation in positions, including flat back TT mode (with bent elbows in the drops). http://www.flickr.com/photos/79695460@N00/400396875/in/set-72157607471577085/
Mainly what I have learned from Rivendell and others is the racing bike concept put forth here and elsewhaere is very limiting and is a poor model for the vast majority of riders, including many competitive cyclists.
Thanks for all the excellent articles Dave, even the ones I disagree with. They are all thought provoking and enjoyable.
One thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is that most of the power required to propel a bicycle at normal riding speeds is used to overcome wind resistance. In fact, at 12 mph wind resistance accounts for about half your power and rises exponentially as speed increases. Therefore a "sit up and beg" riding position is very inefficient at anything above walking speed. Clearly, the closer your riding position approaches the racing position, the faster you will ride with the least amount of effort. So, if you're happy to meander along at 8-10 mph, sit as high and upright as you want. But if you prefer to ride at 15-20 mph or faster, it's a lot easier if you present a lower profile to the wind.
One revelation to me has been the "compact drop" handlebar made by FSA. It brings the tops and the drops closer together and you can set the stem a bit higher and really use all the hand positions. I find that going from tops to drops on my old handlebars left me feeling too high or too low.
One problem I feel is the fact that you are limited in bike choices. Either the racer models which are made to be efficient fast machines or something else. All have their place but why do cruisers have to weigh in at 50lbs. It seems that if I want a reasonably light bike it has to be a racing machine. The city, commuter bikes are all heavy. Can't there be a bike with a light frame with a fairly sturdy fork that will fit reasonable 28c wheels?
Because of marketing we have this trend or that trend but little of what would make a good frame for casual riding.
Couldn't agree more Dave, great post. About time someone questioned the strange fad of ridiculously high drop bars.
Here we go again with this endless grouch discussion, as we know grouchiness sells. But some of this should be edited. There are Iraq war vets who are now homeless.
What if I said: "Studies have shown that inhaling silver flux over time , as well as physical abuse in early childhood can cause mental health issues later on. Oh just kidding".
Even in the 50's there were drop-bar touring bikes. The french had their Renee Herses with wide tires and more comfortable geomtery. And the bars were level with the saddles. The Europeans have a more practical attitude with drop bar bikes than we do. In America, bikes are still weekend warrior toys. But we all know this.
Some of you guys need to get off the weight-weenie wagon. You don't need an 18 lb. bike to commute through the city. I think having a bit of beef under you actually helps the process. It's also comforting knowing that my frame is far less likely to explode.
Raliegh three speeds were never designed to ride up and down hills.
Weight is only going to really make a difference if you race, weight closer to 160 lbs. or less, and climb a lot of hills (and I mean big giant hills). And then you have to factor in how much of a hurry you are in if you don't race and want to ride faster in a group or solo. How "intense" are you?
The problem is not in the frame design/ body mechanics, it's in our American consumer mindset. And with the sales process.
With our mindset, We all think a "road bike" is a racing bike, because we see the Tour on ESPN. The funniest thing in my mind is that we then aspire to be like those racers (some of whom are pretty damn close to being homeless themselves, especially the Belgians and Chernobyl survivors) ....But wait! They are assholes themselves! They recycle their own blood, and even put electric motors in their bikes...
Hellooo?
Then we try to look like that in traffic and wonder why "rednecks" try to run us over.
With the sales process, a lot of the "hipster" salespeople in the shops are poorly trained as to how to "qualify the customer". A lot of road racing bikes are hawked
because we play on people's egos and desire to look cool and compete. "you do wanna climb hill fast....doncha? This frame is made with stealth bomber technology".
-How can you argue with that pitch? It's too perfect. yeah, then these people go out and crash because they can't handle toe-clips. I see it around here all the time, where a lot of people have money to burn.
Putting a 225 lb. male on a Specialized Roubaix (which has been rated one of the most comfortable "sport Touring" bikes (does that term sound familiar?) Will also possibly result in catastrophic frame failure. But you can never tell that guy this, he's just blown 3 grand. God forbid you try to tell this guy to try wider tires and reduce some PSI, watch him protest...
Dave, BTW, you are now riding a fast racing bike on flat bike paths in Charleston. You blogged this. Don't you think that's the wrong bike for the purpose? Wouldn't a hybrid be better? The more upright position will enable you to avoid dog walkers, cell phone yakkers, Latte guzzling, cell phone yakking, SUV hammering soccer moms, Immigrant ninjas dressed in black, and the occasional snapping turtle.
Guys , come on there's a war on. Did you read about the "exectution" in Afghanistan?
Count your blessings, people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42304341/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/?GT1=43001
OK so the homeless joke was politically incorrect, but I have plenty of compassion for my fellow man, and especially homeless veterans. This is a disgusting state of affairs in a country like America.
However, I hate political correctness. How can a person get their head around the absurities of everyday life if you can't laugh about it once in a while.
This is one of the best quotes I have seen on the subject of PC. The winner of a contest at Texas A&M
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Dave
For me, it's not an issue of politics or political correctness. It's really about non-violent communication.
And my point was really about what we would aspire to be as road cyclists. What exactly is a "road cyclist"? Does that mean you have to race? Funny thing is , the techno=porn writers at Bicycling magazine (who are probably 22 years old) often have no clue what to write when they review the latest Pinarello Prince. How much crap can you write anyway to sell a bike? They write stuff like:
"Castellano (or whoever) took this one through the mountains, He pegged it hard. We timed him. Yes he was fast. But was he comfortable?
These guys know that to sell the bike to your average joe (the reason they have to write this crap in the first place) they have to have a happy medium in the market. Nobody's gonna buy a wicked fast, painful bike. Hence the advent of carbon bikes like the Specialized Roubaix and the Orbea Orca, the two top rated CF machines. personally, I will never buy a CF I am too afraid it will explode.
The guy in the picture is riding an itty-bitty frame. To me, it looks way too small. He doesn't really look like a racer.
But he looks happy. Look at his face.
Look at the cover of a sprint finish on the cover of Velonews. Do those guys ever look happy?
Wow - lighten up people. We're talking bikes here. I think anyone who frequents this blog gets the drift that Dave is a decent and intelligent guy. A few "not PC" jokes blogged shouldn't change that.
I'd agree with Dave - cranked up stems and 'bars just look plain wrong on a road bike. I'd also agree with some of the Rivendell crowd that modern bikes are sized a bit too small, requiring the jacked up 'bars to compensate. I also think modern headsets force this a bit, since they've shrunk in stack height over the years. To me, nothing looks goofier then a modern carbon road bike, stem aimed up, 'bars tilted towards the sky to further the STI lever height. Just plain wrong - sorry.
As far as having the 'bars higher then the saddle, I think you lose some power as well. Everything is a compromise - but keeping the 'bars level with saddle, or maybe two inches below, feels best. Everyone is different however. It also depends on your riding style.
I find drop bars too high to be very uncomfortable. I'm no racer but riding a drop bar bike like an English 3 speed makes for a poor weight distribution and forces the hands into odd angles. That does not mean you need to slam your bars like a pro in the tour but a reasonable drop below the saddle lets you distribute your weight and allows your body to absorb bumps more effectively when riding recreationally.
Hey Its HIS bucks, he can bloody do what he wants, IF this makes him happy. BUT from the OLD OLD school, I agree with Dave, NOT the way I would have set things up. Always the saddle HIGHER than the bars, but we also set the brake levers lower on the curve to encourage getting over the bars more. I can imagine how the Spec set up like he has would handle IF he got out of the saddle, on aclimb or in a sprint! Track bikes the bottom of the bars would have been level with the rim or lower, John Crump
Nice article, thanks for the information.
Viva la opinions, it what makes the wheels go'round. Your average bike commuter (not racer or long distance tourer) is mainly concern with getting from A to B safely. That typically means being comfortable (subjective) - - like wearing socks with sandals. But anyone who spends $3000+ for a CF bike seems to be claiming to be a racer IMO.
I also think that a good part of the problem is the selection available and what happens when a rider goes into the store. What do you want the bike for? Should be the first question asked. What kind of riding do you do? Are you changing how you ride? Work from that point. Selling a bike that doesn't do what it is intended for well is not good. You might get a sale but you might lose a potential cyclist. As set up that bike isn't going to handle as well as it's design spec for. Better training in the bike fit department would help, perhaps, in this case. I think the bike and rider we done an injustice.
A great post and interesting discussion following the post. I can't recall one of Dave's posts generating quite so much controversy, except maybe the post about modern men looking like slobs (one of my favorites, check the archives). I think that the point was that if one is going to ride a racing bike, like the Specialized pictured, it should look like a racing bike and for me that means handlebars somewhere (even well) below the seat. I'm 50 and can still ride the drops for miles. The sloping frames, massive brake/shift levers, and "up-jutting" bar stems just don't look very good to those more familiar with classic racing bikes. BUT, if high handlebars etc is what it takes to get people onto bikes and out of their cars, then I reckon they are fine too.
I couldn't agree with Dave more. My bike is set up with the top of the handlebar two centimeters below the handlebar. I am 56 years old and my bike has always been set up that way. I see people doing the strangest things for comfort except to have the proper KOP, setback and stem length. I think stem length is much more important than stem rise.
And give me a break about the homeless comment. Lighten up people. I deal with a lot of transients in my line of work but not many homeless. Yes, there is a difference.
Dave...Stiff Upper Lip (A great Salsa stem in it's time.)
Go Dave, I just don't understand some of the modern set ups. Mine has stood me in good stead for the last 35 years, exactly as you outline. Keep up the sensible comments, especially on the new generation who think that rules of the road don't apply to them and get the rest of us a bad name!
Dear Dave,
This was an interesting and informative post. I am a Rivendell fan with bars even with my seat, but recently on one of my bikes, I did as you suggested and switched to a shorter stem with less rise so that the bars are about 1 to 2 cm below the seat. What led me to do this was an observation that on this bike, I would feel very comfortable with my hands on drop part of the bar (well below the saddle) but near the end of the bar - low and close. I thought I would try a shorter stem with less rise and so far it has worked well.
My next trial is to move my seat forward a bit as I have always pushed it all the way back to ensure I would have no pressure on my hands. However, I notice that during harder efforts, I move forward on the saddle naturally, and I do not notice any more weight on my hands.
Jay
Dave, love the blog but have to ask as I'm sat here wearing them... What's wrong with socks and sandals?
Keep up the good work/ rants.
Dan
I ride a bike with drops very slightly higher than the saddle. At 52 I find the position more comfortable than lower bars.
As for fitting straight bars, that's a non starter. They are wider and mean that I wouldn't be able to cycle between stationary lanes of traffic so easily during the rush hour. I'd hit even more car mirrors than I do now. Also, they offer no variation in hand position on long rides and I'd have to buy new gear shifters and brake levers.
I've not ridden a road bike with straight bars since I was 13. I'm not going to start now.
I think a good visual companion to this article can be found here...
http://www.rideyourbike.com/steellugs.html
See for yourself. Ridiculous, I says.
Dave,
I love reading your blog. I find it very interesting and appreciate the "non-yes-man" approach. Speak your mind and support it with appropriate data fosters great discussion material. You are one of the few bike related blogs I read that actually gives me something to think about instead of "warm-fuzzy, I'm such a nice person opinions" which don't actually contribute to learning something new about bikes. Keep up the good work. I even like your non-Politically-Correct jokes. It's actually refreshing to me to see that some people still have humor and isn't afraid to speak it in a public forum. Please keep on writing.
Dave,
As someone who has raced, wrenched, and sold many a bike, I can honestly say that everything you've said in this article is Gospel. When people came to me wanting a "road bike", I always advocated the position you described, and for exactly the same reason: it works. Like you said, bike position is about balance, and when the rider is properly balanced, then their performance will be maximized. It's not necessarily about racing or speed per se, but who's going to find the most comfortable position? Some guy who rides his bike 10 miles, or the guy who rides it a 100? It's common sense, and if people can't see that, well they're just being obtuse. Riv-people: do what you want, but you're not fooling me. You're bike don't fit and I'll betcha 10 bucks yer ass hurts.
Here is a site that is a counter to the Rivendell site. It advocates stems as low as posible.
http://slamthatstem.com/
Dave
Stick a B-17 on that rig.The only thing amiss on that Roubaix is the skinny ass saddle.
Take a look at this:
http://tinyurl.com/3kl4ozo
I generally dislike high bars but discovered that for a dirt-biased allrounder high bars do make a lot of sense and -- this surprised me -- that with the right setup you can still get the ideal back angle and reach for power and comfort and even, by simply bending your elbows in hooks or on hoods, a good aero position. The simple difference is to put the bar a bit further ahead of the saddle, saddle position remaining the same wrt the bb in all cases. This gives me the same roughly 68 cm distance from saddle to tips of hoods on all my bikes, low or high bar (again, saddle always the same wrt bb).
I fell into this arrangement while experimenting with drop bars off road where I wanted both a good road bike position for flat cruising and a high bar position for dropoffs and to unweight the front end for the deep sand we get here in Albuquerque, NM. I was astonished and alarmed when I built the Fargo and found that the best position put the bar fully 8 cm above the saddle; embarrassing but, indeed, it works well. I just got back from a ramble involving rolling terrain, sand, pavement, a little rip rap, and wind, wind wind (which is why the chain is in the usually ignored middle ring: pushing up an incline into 24 gusts to 35 in sand takes a lower gear).
This bike will (one hopes, eventually) be used for moderately loaded touring on pavement and light dirt.
The bars on the Fargo are Nitto Noodles which I've found the best compromise for this sort of mixed terrain/conditions riding; better than the many WTB and clone dirt specific drop bars I've used.
While "homeless or handicapped" gets the message across, "sitting up like a bus driver" might be a little more sensitive.
I've had pretty good success encouraging riders to defy conventional wisdom by sliding the saddle back, lowering it a bit, and flatten and stretch their backs at whatever angle they feel comfortable. But preferably with the stem at least no higher than the saddle.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for posting this article on handlebar position. I feel like I have finally come to the end of a long struggle with bike fit. My local bike shop was utterly unhelpful, and it has taken me months to figure out which saddle and saddle position, and now through this article I finally am in the ballpark on handlebar position.
I've spent a fortune on stems and bars, but still hadn't gotten a stable balanced position until I tried lowering and shortening the reach to the handlebars as you describe. I'm a bicycle commuter (on a fixed gear, sorry) that rides semi-aggressively and this finally has me in a balanced position where I can put down decent power with good spin and without being too stretched out. I can now ride in the drops near 100% of the time with a comfortable back angle and without having to crane my neck. Great job explaining why the handlebar should go where you describe. A world of difference.
Best,
Carlos