Road bike "comfort" - what do you mean?

larkim

When people describe road bikes as "more comfortable" etc, what do they really mean? Comfortable for me involves sitting in a soft seat, feet up, watching TV.

I've never felt "comfortable" on a bike (road or MTB). I'm sat perched up on a metal object with high pressure tyres, bumping over poor quality road surfaces, holding onto a metal bar with a razor-shaped saddle up my backside. The experience is so far removed from my definition of comfortable that I can't conceive of what it might feel like!

Of course, my bike hasn't been fitted especially for me; I'm too miserly to shell out for a bike fit, and don't have the funds to be trying (and discarding) multiple stems, seats, bar widths, tyre combinations etc.

But I do have what is regarded as an "ok" bike for comfort, with a carbon fork (I believe they are supposed to be "more comfortable") and don't ride with stupid pressures.

Is this a daft question to ask? (Not trolling, honestly!)

whoof

I suppose it's a matter of compared to what. It might be more comfortable to lie down and watch TV than sit.

With a bike I find a road bike where you are bent over the bars where your arms can be used as a form of suspension for your upper body more comfortable than say a 'sit-up and beg' position where your body acts as a pile driver down onto the saddle.
In comparison to a mountain bike there can be more scope for different hand positions and in turn the angle at which you back is. This can be more comfortable over long periods as you are not in the same position all the time.

topdude

Hi, not a daft question at all, bikes are not comfortable they are designed for a specific purpose.
Most of us ride a "road bike" which really means "racing bike" they are designed for the purpose of racing.
They have light stiff frames with a short wheelbase, stiff wheels with skinny tyres and high pressures and a thin hard saddle, all designed for racing not for pootling around on a Sunday afternoon.

However you can say that one bike is more comfortable than another. I think comfort comes from having the right size frame with the best geometry to suit you. Wheels that are not too stiff with wider tyres at sensible pressures. A saddle that suits the shape of your bottom and has a degree of give. Bars that are the correct width / drop / reach. The saddle and bars need to be set up to give you the best riding position without causing any stress or strain on your body. Only then are you approaching what could be considered a comfortable bike.

Apologies for the long reply !!!

ben@31

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19655309#p19655309]larkim[/url] wrote:

When people describe road bikes as "more comfortable" etc, what do they really mean?

In my opinion it means the ability to cycle long distances.

A comfortable bike would.

- Dampen out excessive vibration from the road surface, sometimes called "road buzz".
- Have a riding position that reduces muscle fatigue in the back, shoulders, lower neck and arms.

This is usually found in the designs of road bikes that are marketed as "endurance" or "sportive bikes". Such as the Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Endurace, Cannodale Synapse and Trek Domane. These have a less aggressive geometry and the frame might have more flex in certain directions to absorb vibration; compared to full on specific race bikes that are more suited to flexible young guys who can put up with a crippling low front end. This doesn't mean the above are lesser bikes, far from it.

One option is to get a professional bike fit, such as Retul. This bike fit would adjust your bike saddle, cleats and suggest a stem height and reach to make the bike more comfortable for you. Or suggest what bike is more suited before you buy.

In my own experience, if you want to cycle further it certainly helps having a bike that you are comfortable with. Even psychologically, as I was put off riding one bike that felt slightly too big/long for me.

norvernrob

It's all relative isn't it. I've got one of the stiffest, most uncomfortable bikes going (if the reviews are to be believed) - a Scott Foil. Yet I can do 6 or 7 hours on it and get off with no aches or pains whatsoever. Someone with arthritis in their neck and hands probably wouldn't get 10 miles on it.

ben@31

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19655309#p19655309]larkim[/url] wrote:

Of course, my bike hasn't been fitted especially for me; I'm too miserly to shell out for a bike fit, and don't have the funds to be trying (and discarding) multiple stems, seats, bar widths, tyre combinations etc.

The cost of a bike-fit includes trying all sorts of different saddles, bar widths and stems that belong to them. You only pay for the one stem or saddle that the bike-fit calculates is best for you. A try before you buy. You don't buy multiple components and throw them away.

Or alternatively you can buy nothing at the time of the bike-fit and just take the recommended sizes away with you to buy at a later date, if you so wish.

I think my bike-fit... that included recommendations for saddle, seat-post position, stem height and reach, bar width, crank arm length, cleat position and foot-beds inside shoes cost £90.

simon_masterson

Bike fits have their uses, but they're a money spinner for bike shops. I get that it's the done thing to throw money at things to fix them in this day and age, but you don't need to pay in order to end up with your saddle/seatpost/handlebars/cleats/etc set up correctly; you can and you should do this yourself, at least in the first instance.

frisbee

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19656644#p19656644]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:

Bike fits have their uses, but they're a money spinner for bike shops. I get that it's the done thing to throw money at things to fix them in this day and age, but you don't need to pay in order to end up with your saddle/seatpost/handlebars/cleats/etc set up correctly; you can and you should do this yourself, at least in the first instance.

Some people can't do that though, for whatever reason they can't find a comfortable bike and position without guidance.

Whereas some people, myself and you by the sounds of it, can get on anything that is sort of right and off they go.

simon_masterson

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19656698#p19656698]frisbee[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19656644#p19656644]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:

Bike fits have their uses, but they're a money spinner for bike shops. I get that it's the done thing to throw money at things to fix them in this day and age, but you don't need to pay in order to end up with your saddle/seatpost/handlebars/cleats/etc set up correctly; you can and you should do this yourself, at least in the first instance.

Some people can't do that though, for whatever reason they can't find a comfortable bike and position without guidance.

Whereas some people, myself and you by the sounds of it, can get on anything that is sort of right and off they go.

Of course - Some people will obviously have particular needs, whether that's because of back pain, knee trouble, foot support needs, or something else; clearly it's worth seeing a professional to support those. If not though, I don't agree with encouraging anyone to pay a bike shop to do essentially the same thing as you can do at home with your bike stationary and ideally a friend/willing significant other to help you - seat height by inseam formula of choice and knee angle, KOPS, etc... many of these people aren't experts.

Anonymous

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19655309#p19655309]larkim[/url] wrote:

When people describe road bikes as "more comfortable" etc, what do they really mean?

Falls into two categories:
Comfortable riding position. i.e. more upright.
Comfortable ride. i.e. lots of damping/flex (officially called compliance these days lol) in frame, tyres etc.

If you are in the wrong position your body will tell you about it very quickly.
Ride harshness is more about time in saddle and terrain though, so there is not much need for a super compliant bike riding short to medium distances on half decent tarmac IMO

I dislike the term comfortable being used as though it actually is comfortable. More comfortable sure, but not actually comfortable like a sofa or playing golf.
I guess it gets more people into cycling (as its used as a marketing tool) but feel taking things to 'comfort' extremes is often unnecessary, and a lot of people buy an overly relaxed, overly compliant, first road bike.

larkim

Thanks all. With a road bike experience set of 1, I've clearly got nothing to compare to.

The bit that baffles me most is the comments about frame flex etc - I do find it odd that I can compress my tyres with my fingers (a little bit!), and not bend the frame with my bare hands, and yet the impact of a various technologies in terms of the frame's "compliance" is supposedly noticeable. I would have thought that the compliance you get from your tyres would far outweigh anything you can benefit from in terms of the way the frame flexes.

Matt

topdude

I would have thought that the compliance you get from your tyres would far outweigh anything you can benefit from in terms of the way the frame flexes.

Maybe it's more down to materials, frames are made of tubes (stiff and strong) formed into triangles (stiff and strong) i doubt if a frame flexes vertically more than one or two thou.

However i have owned the following bikes :
Titanium Van Nicholas - very smooth ride
Alloy Giant Defy - very harsh ride compared to the Van Nic
Steel Genesis Equilibrium - smoother than the Giant - nearly as good as the Van Nic

All had similar components, wheels and tyres, the difference was not due to flexing but transmission of harshness from the road. Especially noticeable riding over cattle grids.
I suspect the different materials transmit or dampen the road buzz in different ways.

Anonymous

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19657532#p19657532]larkim[/url] wrote:

Thanks all. With a road bike experience set of 1, I've clearly got nothing to compare to.

The bit that baffles me most is the comments about frame flex etc - I do find it odd that I can compress my tyres with my fingers (a little bit!), and not bend the frame with my bare hands, and yet the impact of a various technologies in terms of the frame's "compliance" is supposedly noticeable. I would have thought that the compliance you get from your tyres would far outweigh anything you can benefit from in terms of the way the frame flexes.

Matt

I feel the same to a point. that point being, would going up a tyre size and lowering pressure be more extra compliance than the tech in the frame.

Fram flex is over a much bigger area though, and you weight is more force than your hand grip, so frames make a difference for sure.
You only have to ride a decent TT bike to realise that.