# Best stem for comfort



## Huggis (2 Jan 2017)

I am building up a new road bike and currently researching my seatpost, bars and stem. However there seems to be very little information on which stems are best for soaking up road buzz. Anyone for any recommendations or come acrosss any tests?


----------



## vickster (2 Jan 2017)

Not heard of stems reducing buzz. I'd go for thicker tape, lizardskins 3.2 for me


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jan 2017)

Huggis said:


> I am building up a new road bike and currently researching my seatpost, bars and stem. However there seems to be very little information on which stems are best for soaking up road buzz. Anyone for any recommendations or come acrosss any tests?


A stem is a stem, it has no suspension or damping properties, unless you buy one with such a system built in. If you need a softer ride experiment with tyres and their pressures, don't fall for the crap journalists in the magazines spout about this frame or these handlebars being more comfortable than those over there. 

BTW, I've been cycling for over half a century and none of the countless bikes I've owned have ever buzzed. Maybe I've just been lucky?


----------



## dave r (2 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> A stem is a stem, it has no suspension or damping properties, unless you buy one with such a system built in. If you need a softer ride experiment with tyres and their pressures, don't fall for the crap journalists in the magazines spout about this frame or these handlebars being more comfortable than those over there.
> 
> BTW, I've been cycling for over half a century and none of the countless bikes I've owned have ever buzzed. Maybe I've just been lucky?



You're not alone, over forty years of cycling and I've never come across road buzz either.


----------



## e-rider (2 Jan 2017)

Huggis said:


> I am building up a new road bike and currently researching my seatpost, bars and stem. However there seems to be very little information on which stems are best for soaking up road buzz. Anyone for any recommendations or come acrosss any tests?


you might find someone who claims carbon fiber will reduce road buzz but I'd say that's BS outside of any high tech lab experiment
focus your efforts on gettin gthe correct length and rise as too long too low too high and too short will all be uncomfortable


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jan 2017)

I _do_ know what road buzz is and it isn't nice! It's the vibration that comes through the bike from riding over roads covered in that rough chip-and-seal surface dressing. The vibrations made my fillings hurt and my hands and feet go numb, as well as making my bike sound like it was shaking itself to pieces.

The solution wasn't a new stem though, it was as @Smokin Joe suggested - looking at tyres and pressures. Changing from 23C tyres at 100+ psi to 25C tyres at 80-90 psi made all the difference. And that is on a very stiff oversized alumininium frame with a very stiff stem and stiff oversized bars. Oh, and as @vickster suggested, thicker, more-cushioned bar tape helps too.


----------



## dim (2 Jan 2017)

road buzz does exist

ride a road bike with aluminium forks on a bumpy road and you will soon find out when your fillings fall out ... carbon does dampen out a lot of the 'buzz' .... I used to own a cheap aluminium Carrera road bike with aluminium forks

My specialized has carbon handlebars, carbon handlebar stem and a carbon seat post and I would say that it has less vibrations/buzz than my Surly LHT steel bike that has wider tyres


----------



## Moodyman (2 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I've been cycling for over half a century and none of the countless bikes I've owned have ever *buzzed*. Maybe I've just been lucky?[/QUOTE
> 
> Not even when you were on performance enhancing stimulants?


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> road buzz does exist
> 
> ride a road bike with aluminium forks on a bumpy road and you will soon find out when your fillings fall out ...


I've ridden all steel, all aluminium, alu/carbon and all carbon and never found one that was harsher or more comfortable than the other. Frame geometry, tyre and tube quality and pressures are what dictates the ride, not materials.


----------



## Drago (2 Jan 2017)

dave r said:


> Your not alone, over forty years of cycling and I've never come across road buzz either.


It's a fairly recent phenomenon originating in roadie magazines to give them something to get moist over with carbon frames. This is despite carbon supposedly being stiffer and lighter, which actually makes it _less_ efficient as a damping medium than a more forgiving, heavier/denser material.

Its fairy dust.

In answer to the OPs question, there is no such thing. In terms of damping properties a stem is a stem, and you want a stem as stiff as possible for safety and efficiency reasons, and such stiffness is at odds with any damping requirement. Joe is wise when he says other shizzle like tyres will make the biggest difference to such characteristics.


----------



## dave r (2 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> It's a fairly recent phenomenon originating in roadie magazines to give them something to get moist over with carbon frames. This js despite carbon supposedly being stiffer and lighter, which actually makes it less efficient as a damping medium than a more forgiving, heavier/denser material.
> 
> Its fairy dust.



I wondered why people have only been talking about road buzz in the last couple of years and only on forums, we weren't talking about it twenty thirty years ago and its not been a subject of conversation on the cafe stops


----------



## Huggis (2 Jan 2017)

Thanks all..as noted it's the buzz which comes from the chip seal roads found all around where I live in Scotland. It's again unusual that there is much confirmation of the damping effects of carbon whether used in frames, bars or seatpost (yes some are better than others) yet the poor stem seems to get no such attention.


----------



## Drago (2 Jan 2017)

I've asked on many forums and even a letter to a roadie magazine, and no one has yet explained how a lighter, stiffer material had better damping properties. To be so would be against some of the most fundamental physical laws.


----------



## S-Express (2 Jan 2017)

Huggis said:


> Thanks all..as noted it's the buzz which comes from the chip seal roads found all around where I live in Scotland. It's again unusual that there is much confirmation of the damping effects of carbon whether used in frames, bars or seatpost (yes some are better than others) yet the poor stem seems to get no such attention.



Just let 5psi out of your tyres, that should do the trick. In terms of stems, one lump of welded aluminium tube is pretty much like another. None of them will 'soak up road buzz', because as pointed out, it is physically impossible.

The 'damping effects of carbon' is one of the great myths perpetrated by reviewers in cycling mags.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Jan 2017)

Must admit got carbon and steel road bike and don't really notice a great difference


----------



## Reynard (2 Jan 2017)

If I remember my 2nd year undergrad dynamics correctly, the vibrations you feel depend on a) the excitation i.e the vibration induced to the object in question (in this case, that provided by the uneven road surface) and b) its natural frequency. If those two frequencies are wildly different, theoretically you shouldn't feel a thing. But if those frequencies are similar, you will most certainly feel a noticeable vibration. If the frequencies are identical, then that really does spell trouble...

The material for said object isn't so important as its natural frequency and the vibrations to which it is subjected. This is where dampers come into play if there is a danger of those frequencies being similar. Examples of these are the weights you see hanging from power lines or on suspension bridge cables, or, in the case of a bike, the tyres themselves (and the pressure at which they run). These act to alter the natural frequency of the object in question to one which it is unlikely to encounter during service.

If you ever want to see the effect of natural frequency and induced vibrations (in this case a gusting wind) matching, look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge.


----------



## dave r (2 Jan 2017)




----------



## vickster (2 Jan 2017)

Reynard said:


> If I remember my 2nd year undergrad dynamics correctly, the vibrations you feel depend on a) the excitation i.e the vibration induced to the object in question (in this case, that provided by the uneven road surface) and b) its natural frequency. If those two frequencies are wildly different, theoretically you shouldn't feel a thing. But if those frequencies are similar, you will most certainly feel a noticeable vibration. If the frequencies are identical, then that really does spell trouble...
> 
> The material for said object isn't so important as its natural frequency and the vibrations to which it is subjected. This is where dampers come into play if there is a danger of those frequencies being similar. Examples of these are the weights you see hanging from power lines or on suspension bridge cables, or, in the case of a bike, the tyres themselves (and the pressure at which they run). These act to alter the natural frequency of the object in question to one which it is unlikely to encounter during service.
> 
> If you ever want to see the effect of natural frequency and induced vibrations (in this case a gusting wind) matching, look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge.


Good Lord, don't let science get in the way of marketing


----------



## Reynard (2 Jan 2017)

vickster said:


> Good Lord, don't let science get in the way of marketing


----------



## smutchin (2 Jan 2017)

vickster said:


> Good Lord, don't let science get in the way of marketing




View: https://youtu.be/Z4cEfEgNvwY


----------



## e-rider (2 Jan 2017)

resonant frequency - 3Hz makes you lose control of your bowels, or so it's claimed - let's not get a seatpost that resonates at 3Hz on surface dressed roads then.


----------



## Randy Butternubs (3 Jan 2017)

Reynard said:


> If you ever want to see the effect of natural frequency and induced vibrations (in this case a gusting wind) matching, look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge.



According to one of my university professors this is a common misconception. The bridge actually failed to aeroelastic flutter. 

(Yes I do love ruining things)


----------



## iandg (3 Jan 2017)

I've had tyres that hum, but never heard a road buzz........road vibration a different thing tho' - a steel frame with a nice pair of 28c's is much smoother than an alloy with 23c's - I sold my only aluminium bike after only a few months of riding.

I used to have a flex stem on my MTB which helped dampen vibration through the bars.

https://flic.kr/p/9FLbRJ


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Jan 2017)

wicker man said:


> I've had tyres that hum, but never heard a road buzz........road vibration a different thing tho' - a steel frame with a nice pair of 28c's is much smoother than an alloy with 23c's - I sold my only aluminium bike after only a few months of riding.
> 
> I used to have a flex stem on my MTB which helped dampen vibration through the bars.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/9FLbRJ


I think the clue is 23's and 28's.


----------



## iandg (3 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I think the clue is 23's and 28's.



My steel audax bike is comfy with 23c and 25c tyres too - I even tried 25c on the aluminium giant but it was so 'bumpy' I ditched it pretty quickly and went back to a steel frame


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Jan 2017)

wicker man said:


> My steel audax bike is comfy with 23c and 25c tyres too - I even tried 25c on the aluminium giant but it was so 'bumpy' I ditched it pretty quickly and went back to a steel frame


Same geometry and brand of tyre and tube as the aluminium bike?


----------



## iandg (3 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> Same geometry and brand of tyre and tube as the aluminium bike?



No, but I've ridden my old 1970s Raleigh which has the same geometry/wheelbase as the 'ex' giant and used the same Rubino Pro tyres and that was far more comfortable too.


----------



## HLaB (3 Jan 2017)

My first road bike was great but I could get a bit of what I'd call 'Road Buzz' over a slightly rougher surface, it had alloy forks; I've never experienced it on far rougher surfaces on subsequent bikes with carbon forks. A carbon stem might have a slight dampening effect but I doubt you'll notice it; forks, wheels and tyres are probably your better bet. Try just simply dropping a few psi on the tyres (not too low as you'd be subject to p'tures).


----------



## dim (3 Jan 2017)

wicker man said:


> My steel audax bike is comfy with 23c and 25c tyres too - I even tried 25c on the aluminium giant but it was so 'bumpy' I ditched it pretty quickly and went back to a steel frame



Hmmmm .... I'm not so sure about that. There's not much difference in ride quality between a carbon framed bike and a good aluminium framed bike. Most/all good aluminium framed bikes have carbon forks. My S-Works (aluminium) weighs slightly less than my Giant TCR carbon bike (it weighs just over 7.5kg) and rides just as comfy .... same applies to steel (I also have a steel Surly LHT, and owned a few other (good) steel bikes in the past

here's some more info:


----------



## iandg (3 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> Hmmmm .... I'm not so sure about that. There's not much difference in ride quality between a carbon framed bike and a good aluminium framed bike. Most/all good aluminium framed bikes have carbon forks. My S-Works (aluminium) weighs slightly less than my Giant TCR carbon bike (it weighs just over 7.5kg) and rides just as comfy .... same applies to steel (I also have a steel Surly LHT, and owned a few other (good) steel bikes in the past
> y
> here's some more info:



I remember now it was an early 2000s Saracen Aubisque with alloy forks, not a Giant

I'd expect the audax/tourer to be more comfortable because it's shallower and has a few more inches of wheelbase than the alloy Saracen.

I've never ridden carbon fibre so couldn't compare - my experience has been with 1970's 531 steel and a 2005 631 audax tourer. They all rode better than the Saracen - I didn't imagine it, it was a harsher, bumpier ride. That's why I ditched it within 2 months. The 1978 Raleigh Professional was a much better ride and the bike I've done my fastest rides on. I went back to riding it after ditching the Saracen.

Probably not fair to compare 531 steel against a production aluminium frame but that's all I've had experience of. Been building up a steel Genesis Equilibrium with carbon forks to replace the 40 year old Raleigh so will have another experience for comparison in the not too distant future.


----------



## Drago (3 Jan 2017)

Oh my God, not GCN. You'd get better science using a Ouija board.


----------



## dim (3 Jan 2017)

wicker man said:


> I remember now it was a 2006 Saracen Aubisque alloy with alloy forks, not a Giant
> 
> I'd expect the audax/tourer to be more comfortable because it's shallower and has a few more inches of wheelbase than the alloy Saracen.
> 
> ...



it's the forks .... I used to own a cheap aluminium Carrera which had aluminium forks. There's a section on my daily commute that has a lot of bumps .... it was a nightmare.

same goes for steel bikes. I had a Gitane tour de france that was 531 and it had steel forks.... the forks had a big sweep / curve and this bike was an absolute pleasure to ride. Very comfortable, especially on bumpy roads... a pic showing the forks (a google pic and was not mine, but mine was identical, except it had a better saddle, and black bar tape)..... that was a very nice bike


----------



## Drago (3 Jan 2017)

So, apart from all the differences it was identical?


----------



## dim (3 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> So, apart from all the differences it was identical?



yup .... same frame, same steel, same forks, same gearing just better 'finer detail'


----------



## bozmandb9 (3 Jan 2017)

Interesting debate about road buzz. Here's my take on it. 

If you're getting lots of vibration through the bars, and it's really jarring, then you're probably putting too much weight though your arms. This is quite common. Most of us have pretty poor core strength. Your core muscles should be supporting your core, to a large extent. Your upper body weight should not all be tilted down through your arms and hands.

I used to suffer carpal tunnel syndrome, when I was doing this, and it's not pleasant. In my view, no amount of damping, or cushioning, will compensate for bad cycle posture like this. Far better to work on your functional core strength. Off the bike, crunches, planks, sit ups, Russian twists, etc, on the bike, practice riding with minimal weight through your arms, or even no weight, as you get better at it.

Improving core strength can also improve power delivery. All power delivered though the legs uses the core (torso) as a base or platform. A stronger core will reduce the rocking or snaking effect through the torso, which is effectively like a worn ball joint.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jan 2017)

Pneumatic tyres were invented for a reason - they can offer simple, effective suspension - _*if you allow them to*_!!!

Cannondale CAAD5, oversized aluminium frame, carbon forks, 23C tyres at 110 psi, 40 mph descent on rough Lancashire road surface. Result: lots of noise from cables and from chain slap, toothache, numb hands, numb feet, near loss of control of bike, bottle ejected itself from bottle cage. 

Same Cannondale CAAD5, oversized aluminium frame, carbon forks, but now with 25C tyres at 90 psi, 40 mph descent on same rough Lancashire road surface. Result: no excessive noise, comfortable teeth, hands & feet, total control of bike, bottle remained safely in bottle cage.


----------



## iandg (3 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> it's the forks .... I used to own a cheap aluminium Carrera which had aluminium forks. There's a section on my daily commute that has a lot of bumps .... it was a nightmare.
> 
> same goes for steel bikes. I had a Gitane tour de france that was 531 and it had steel forks.... the forks had a big sweep / curve and this bike was an absolute pleasure to ride. Very comfortable, especially on bumpy roads... a pic showing the forks (a google pic and was not mine, but mine was identical, except it had a better saddle, and black bar tape)..... that was a very nice bike



That makes sense - it was horrible, especially on the rough roads on the island. Bought the frame second hand for £35 as I didn't have much spare cash at the time so it wasn't a big loss when I sold it on.


----------



## dim (3 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Interesting debate about road buzz. Here's my take on it.
> 
> If you're getting lots of vibration through the bars, and it's really jarring, then you're probably putting too much weight though your arms. This is quite common. Most of us have pretty poor core strength. Your core muscles should be supporting your core, to a large extent. Your upper body weight should not all be tilted down through your arms and hands.
> 
> ...



ride 3 different bikes on a bumpy course on the same day, and you will see that are differences


----------



## bozmandb9 (3 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> ride 3 different bikes on a bumpy course on the same day, and you will see that are differences



Not sure how that's relevant to my point.


----------



## dim (3 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Not sure how that's relevant to my point.



you talk about core strength etc .... what I am saying, is forget about that, and ride 3 different bikes on the same bumpy course on the very same day but use bikes with the same tyres and pressures, but bikes that are made of different materials (example: a steel bike, a carbon bike, aluminium or titanium, or even bamboo) .... then you will see that frame material does make a difference, especially between an aluminium bike with aluminium forks, vs a steel bike or even vs an aluminium bike with carbon forks


----------



## Drago (3 Jan 2017)

How do you know it's the material and not tube profile/design? As aforementioned, a stiffer material with lower mass makes for a poor damper.


----------



## Reynard (3 Jan 2017)

Randy Butternubs said:


> According to one of my university professors this is a common misconception. The bridge actually failed to aeroelastic flutter.
> 
> (Yes I do love ruining things)



Hah, the chap I had for dynamics saw it the other way. Me personally, I think a bit of both, but you have to say, it's a good visual demonstration of what can happen. Still, it's also why soldiers are told to break step when they march across a bridge


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jan 2017)

Reynard said:


> Hah, the chap I had for dynamics saw it the other way. Me personally, I think a bit of both, but you have to say, it's a good visual demonstration of what can happen. Still, it's also why soldiers are told to break step when they march across a bridge


And it is why the Humber bridge was designed with a deck profile like an inverted aeroplane wing. The more the wind blows, the more the deck is forced down and the more stable it is.


----------



## bozmandb9 (4 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> you talk about core strength etc .... what I am saying, is forget about that, and ride 3 different bikes on the same bumpy course on the very same day but use bikes with the same tyres and pressures, but bikes that are made of different materials (example: a steel bike, a carbon bike, aluminium or titanium, or even bamboo) .... then you will see that frame material does make a difference, especially between an aluminium bike with aluminium forks, vs a steel bike or even vs an aluminium bike with carbon forks



I'm not saying frame material doesn't make a difference, what I am saying, is that if vibration through the front end is a real issue, then it's much more likely to be fixed through adjusting riding style, and improving core strength.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> Most/all good aluminium framed bikes have carbon forks.


Why? What's wrong with aluminium forks? With a titanium frame, why don't 'they' (generally) have a titanium fork? If titanium is a better frame material than . . . , why is it not a better fork material?


bozmandb9 said:


> fixed through adjusting riding style, and improving core strength


I agree, combined with moving the saddle back if the top tube length plus stem allows (if not consider replacing stem with a shorter one). But increasing tyre widths and [Edit - thank you @ColinJ - decreasing ] pressures will give you the most beneficial effect, and many frames can manage a tyre which is 26mm wide (eg Conti GP4S 28-622). With an 85kg all up load mine run at only 75psi front and 90psi rear.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> But increasing tyre widths and _*(DECREASING?)*_ pressures will give you the most beneficial effect, and many frames can manage a tyre which is 26mm wide (eg Conti GP4S 28-622). With an 85kg all up load mine run at only 75psi front and 90psi rear.


----------



## S-Express (5 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Interesting debate about road buzz. Here's my take on it.
> 
> If you're getting lots of vibration through the bars, and it's really jarring, then you're probably putting too much weight though your arms. This is quite common. Most of us have pretty poor core strength. Your core muscles should be supporting your core, to a large extent. Your upper body weight should not all be tilted down through your arms and hands.
> 
> ...



Jarring and vibration are two different things though, aren't they. Vibration suggests high frequency, low impact, while jarring implies lower frequency, higher impact. I don't think either would be helped by core strength in any case. Fork shape (mentioned in an earlier post) is not relevant either - unless whoever thinks that believes that the fork actually moves visibly under impact - which it obviously doesn't.

You say 'most of us have pretty poor core strength' - but I don't think that's generally the case. Most of us have adequate core strength for whatever it is we do. As presumably most of us on here are cyclists, then our cores will have adapted and/or strengthened according to the needs that cycling places on it.

Forces applied through the legs while cycling are relatively low, at a level already well within the capabilities of most people's cores. Rocking or 'snaking' is usually a symptom of poor fit, or poor technique, rather than a weak core.


----------



## Ajax Bay (5 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Fork shape (mentioned in an earlier post) is not relevant either - unless whoever thinks that believes that the fork actually moves visibly under impact - which it obviously doesn't.


Disagree. Fork shape is relevant. The fact that you can't 'see' the fork moving (ie absorbing some of the input from the road) doesn't mean that it's not moving: your eyes are just not up to it. It obviously does: put a stress on the fork and it will deflect (or compress/extend if the force is directly axial). This will absorb some of the 'road buzz' to a greater or lesser extent. A steel fork with a decent curvature in its lower third (image in @dim 's post #32 above) is designed to do precisely this. Straight carbon blades are not; and don't (to the same extent). But as @ColinJ has said, wider tyres and the reduced pressures thus available have a much bigger part to play. And counter intuitively, at lower pressures, the general shaking around is less (mostly absorbed by the main suspension system (the rider's body)) and so rolling resistance will be less as well. The main argument for narrow tyres is the aero one, with the additional weight of wider tyres in support. So unless you're averaging 25kph +, go wide, and be more comfortable.


----------



## S-Express (5 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Disagree. Fork shape is relevant. The fact that you can't 'see' the fork moving (ie absorbing some of the input from the road) doesn't mean that it's not moving: your eyes are just not up to it. It obviously does: put a stress on the fork and it will deflect (or compress/extend if the force is directly axial). This will absorb some of the 'road buzz' to a greater or lesser extent. A steel fork with a decent curvature in its lower third (image in @dim 's post #32 above) is designed to do precisely this. Straight carbon blades are not; and don't (to the same extent).



No. You might be forgiven for thinking that, but it's not true. Any such fork with 'compliance' built into the blade shape would be uncontrollable under heavy braking load, and would visibly sink with a heavy rider. The fork may indeed flex, but no more or less than a fork of any other shape.


----------



## Ajax Bay (5 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Any such fork with 'compliance' built into the blade shape would be uncontrollable under heavy braking load, and would visibly sink with a heavy rider. The fork may indeed flex, but no more or less than a fork of any other shape.


Where on earth have you dragged up "uncontrollable under heavy braking load"? In what way 'uncontrollable? The fork shape has no effect on steering characteristics which is a function of head tube angle and offset. I've already said that these 'movements' are not visible to the naked eye, however heavy the rider is (and yes the fork will deflect with a heavier load).
So the fork "may indeed flex" then. But you said earlier: "the fork actually moves visibly under impact - which it obviously doesn't". Move? Flex? Why would a different shape of fork not deflect differently? (Answer: no reason: they will deflect differently and a fork with a decent curvature in its lower third will do so having the effect of reducing the effect (at the bars) of 'road buzz'.)
Quoting (highly esteemed frame builder and cyclist) Tony Oliver in "Touring Bikes" IBSN 1 85223 339 7: 
"The shape of the [fork] rake will determine the degree of comfort. [Decries large radius 'pneumatic-drill' banana-shaped blades - fine for TT but not for touring/distance.] . . . ... A blade with a small radius bend low-down near the fork-end will minimise the transmission of road vibrations through to the bar. .. . . . Fashion causes some dire compromises and many younger riders (is that you @S-Express ) prefer to have numb hands rather than be seen riding a fork that looks a little old-fashioned (a fork like mine - 103km today)."


----------



## S-Express (5 Jan 2017)

I've not heard of Tony Oliver, but it seems he is relying on anecdote, rather than science. Shape has little - if any - effect on fork performance. Pinarello's curvy fork (for example) performs no differently than a straight one - or one with a slight bend.


----------



## bozmandb9 (6 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Jarring and vibration are two different things though, aren't they. Vibration suggests high frequency, low impact, while jarring implies lower frequency, higher impact. I don't think either would be helped by core strength in any case. Fork shape (mentioned in an earlier post) is not relevant either - unless whoever thinks that believes that the fork actually moves visibly under impact - which it obviously doesn't.
> 
> You say 'most of us have pretty poor core strength' - but I don't think that's generally the case. Most of us have adequate core strength for whatever it is we do. As presumably most of us on here are cyclists, then our cores will have adapted and/or strengthened according to the needs that cycling places on it.
> 
> Forces applied through the legs while cycling are relatively low, at a level already well within the capabilities of most people's cores. Rocking or 'snaking' is usually a symptom of poor fit, or poor technique, rather than a weak core.



You're entitled to your opinion I suppose. However mine is based on my experience training and knowledge as a Personal Trainer and cycle coach. Do you have any basis for yours other than your personal experience?

Certainly your statement that the core strengthens according to need is wrong. We can cycle for decades with poor form which never improves, unless we target specific improvements, as I am proving with clients is their 7th and 8th decades.


----------



## S-Express (6 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> You're entitled to your opinion I suppose. However mine is based on my experience training and knowledge as a Personal Trainer and cycle coach. Do you have any basis for yours other than your personal experience? Certainly your statement that the core strengthens according to need is wrong. We can cycle for decades with poor form which never improves, unless we target specific improvements, as I am proving with clients is their 7th and 8th decades.



Yeah, I've also got lots of experience, both as a rider and a coach, but that's irrelevant, as is yours. I'm not into saying stuff like "I must be right because I'm experienced" - I would rather rely on empirical evidence. So I'm interested to understand what evidence you have which suggests that cycling does not tax the core muscles in acordance with the demand placed upon them. I'm also interested to understand why the exercise undertaken by the core while cycling, is not enough for cycling? I'm also interested to understand your thought process behind your claim that a better core improves power delivery?

Finally, I'm still not clear what you mean by your statement "most of us have pretty poor core strength". Poor in relation to what? Can you enlarge on that?


----------



## Ajax Bay (6 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> I've not heard of Tony Oliver, but it seems he is relying on anecdote, rather than science.


I commend his book to you. He is a physicist by education and early employment, morphing into many years building frames full time of every sort you could imagine, and more (when not cycling (TT and touring)!). Science.
@S-Express said "I'm interested to understand what evidence you have which suggests that" @S-Express said "Shape has little - if any - effect on fork performance". Anecdote?
To convince yourself, I suggest you sketch a curved fork and then mark the forces acting on the fork-end and then do the same with a much straighter if not straight bladed fork. Which do you think will flex more and thus "minimise the transmission of road vibrations through to the bar"? The curved one (with a small radius bend low-down - and I don't mean the Pinarello marketing snake) or the straight one?


----------



## Smokin Joe (6 Jan 2017)

A "Straight" fork is not straight. It is angled at the crown in order to replicate the geometry of a curved fork, and if there is any flex from the curved part of a conventional fork the offset on the straight fork's crown will serve the same function.


----------



## S-Express (6 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> To convince yourself, I suggest you sketch a curved fork and then mark the forces acting on the fork-end and then do the same with a much straighter if not straight bladed fork. Which do you think will flex more and thus "minimise the transmission of road vibrations through to the bar"? The curved one (with a small radius bend low-down - and I don't mean the Pinarello marketing snake) or the straight one?



Sounds like you might be the one who needs convincing. There is so much more to this than you appear to be grasping. Stiffness not only relies on material, but also tube profile and wall thickness within the plane in which it is supposed to be flexing. The majority of steel hand-builders these days supply frames usually matched with off-the-shelf carbon forks - which flex very little, if at all. If the 'bent' steel fork is so good at 'soaking up road bumps' (lol), then ask yourself why most builders no longer bother making them? If you get a chance to google Rinard's 'fork deflection test' study, it's worth a look. It's a bit out of date now, but hopefully you'll get the idea. Basically, the results show that the difference between the stiffest fork and the flexiest fork were absolutely minimal. It also shows that material choice and blade design are not consistent in terms of which fork offers the most/least flex. In other words, it doesn't follow that the stiffest is carbon/straight and the flexiest is curved/steel.


----------



## Shortandcrisp (6 Jan 2017)

Not sure how much core strength is relevant to cycling. A minimal amount is my assessment based on recent personal experience.
Five weeks after leaving hospital having suffered a serious spinal cord injury, I was able to cycle 20-25 miles, albeit at a slower pace than before. This despite finding it extremely difficult to walk, impossible to do one press up, one pull up, hold a plank position or squat using my own body weight.


----------



## Ajax Bay (6 Jan 2017)

"Stiffness not only relies on material, but also tube profile and wall thickness within the plane in which it is supposed to be flexing." Agree. What's that got to do with fork shape? 
"The majority of steel hand-builders these days supply frames usually matched with off-the-shelf carbon forks - which flex very little, if at all. If the 'bent' steel fork is so good at 'soaking up road bumps' (lol), then ask yourself why most builders no longer bother making them?" My assertion you've disagreed with is about shape not material. Interesting to see (in the graph in the study you referred to (qv)) that the Trek OCLV forks deflected longitudinally most. I had just this fork on a Trek 5500 OCLV: a carbon fork but shaped with a small radius bend lower down.
"If you get a chance to google Rinard's 'fork deflection test' study, it's worth a look. It's a bit out of date now, but hopefully you'll get the idea." Refer to a study and then diss it as being old/ood? Thank you for pointing to it, but pity you can't do so politely ie "hopefully you'll get the idea".
"Basically, the results show that the difference between the stiffest fork and the flexiest fork were absolutely minimal. It also shows that material choice and blade design are not consistent in terms of which fork offers the most/least flex." Don't agree: what do you mean by minimal? What amount would be 'significant'? He only hung a 20kg weight on the forks. The study made minimal reference to blade/fork shape. I have not sought to discuss materials: you keep bringing that in as a distraction (along with "tube profile" and "wall thickness").

@S-Express said "I'm interested to understand what evidence you have which suggests that" @S-Express said "*Shape* has little - if any - effect on fork performance". Anecdote?

Road vibration is typically absorbed by deflection/damping in various parts (in order) as follows ;
- tyre
- fork (blades and steerer)
- frameset (bending in the top tube and down tube)
- handlebar flexing (hence sometimes more comfortable to go onto the drops)
- wheel flexing
Note (back to the OP) that 'stem' does not feature. It is short and very stiff (compared to the frame tubes).



Smokin Joe said:


> A "Straight" fork is not straight. It is angled at the crown in order to replicate the geometry of a curved fork, and if there is any flex from the curved part of a conventional fork the offset on the straight fork's crown will serve the same function.


Most of the 'straight' forks are pretty straight, actually. The 'angle' between the steerer and the fork blades is designed to provide the necessary offset at the fork-ends (a distance measured in mm, not an angle) which, with the head tube angle, will define the nature of the steering: slow and steady for tandems, right up to fast and twitchy for criterium racing bikes. I think this abrupt change in angle (steerer/blade at the crown) will not have the same deflection/road vibration absorbing effect (function) as an old-style shape fork with a small radius curve lower down. Why do you think frame makers of old went to all the trouble of shaping the fork blade from tapered tubing that way, when it would have been much easier to just make the fork with straight (steel) blades? Answer: because it provided a more comfortable ride.


----------



## S-Express (6 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> @S-Express said "I'm interested to understand what evidence you have which suggests that" @S-Express said "*Shape* has little - if any - effect on fork performance". Anecdote?



It was very difficult to follow your last post, so I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly. I just referenced the Rinard study. It suggests that shape has little effect on fork performance. Is that what you were asking?


----------



## Ajax Bay (6 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> I just referenced the Rinard study. It suggests that shape has little effect on fork performance.


"The study made minimal reference to blade/fork shape."


----------



## S-Express (6 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> "The study made minimal reference to blade/fork shape."



The study tested forks of varying shapes and materials, as I said. Regardless of whether it referred to them specifically or not. You can see which forks were tested by looking at the charts.


----------



## bozmandb9 (9 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Yeah, I've also got lots of experience, both as a rider and a coach, but that's irrelevant, as is yours. I'm not into saying stuff like "I must be right because I'm experienced" - I would rather rely on empirical evidence. So I'm interested to understand what evidence you have which suggests that cycling does not tax the core muscles in acordance with the demand placed upon them. I'm also interested to understand why the exercise undertaken by the core while cycling, is not enough for cycling? I'm also interested to understand your thought process behind your claim that a better core improves power delivery?
> 
> Finally, I'm still not clear what you mean by your statement "most of us have pretty poor core strength". Poor in relation to what? Can you enlarge on that?




What I mean is poor in relation to optimal. It is my opinion, that most of us, whilst we may be 'competent' cyclists, are cycling in a way which is far from optimal, and this is why we may encounter aches and pains, and injuries. I find the same with runners, or those who do not exercise.

Modern lifestyle tends to lead to poor core strength, poor in relation to what it 'should' be, and in relation to what would be optimal.

To give you a different example, let's look at the squat, which is one of the basic moves I asses in new clients. In most people it is extremely limited in range, and demonstrates massive quad dominance (look for knees tracking forwards over the toes). An elite athlete should be able to squat to very low, and will be excellent at performing a balanced squat, keeping back straight, using quads glutes, and hamstrings. A more real life example of this is in children. 'Fresh from the box', children will squat to sit. As they get older, and get used to sitting on chairs, they lose this ability. In indigenous cultures, where they do not have chairs, this doesn't happen.

So equally, the poor core strength, is by comparison to what it should be, if we were active for most of the day, rather than sitting. The relevance to the OP, is this: When riding a bike, you will do one of two things with your weight distribution. Ideally, when cycling, your 'core' i.e. your postural, inner abdominal muscles, and lower back muscles, will be doing a great job of holding your upper body weight (obviously not all). To the extent to which you have sub-optimal core strength, your weight will transfer forwards, through your arms, to your hands. This is far from ideal for bike handling, with too much forward weight bias (especially on descents), and puts enormous pressure on the hands, leading to carpal tunnel syndrome, I attach a link from British Cycling below, in which, although they don't specifically concur with my opinion, they state that it is due to 'excessive pressure' on the hands.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/k...he-Experts--Hand-and-wrist-pain-on-the-bike-0

Edited to add, sorry but I really don't have time, to now also explain why applying force through a lever works better from a stable platform, but hope that you can figure our from these few words the answer to your question about power delivery.


----------



## S-Express (9 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> What I mean is poor in relation to optimal. It is my opinion, that most of us, whilst we may be 'competent' cyclists, are cycling in a way which is far from optimal, and this is why we may encounter aches and pains, and injuries. I find the same with runners, or those who do not exercise.



Anyone new to cycling, with 'sub-optimal' core strength* for cycling, simply needs to cycle regularly and they will gain optimal core strength for cycling....by cycling. Obviously if someone has a diagnosed weakness or deficiency in one or more areas of their core structure, then additional weights or exercise regimes might be appropriate. But someone with 'normal' ability just needs to get on and ride.

_* personally, I doubt if anyone's core strength is actually 'sub-optimal', because it is merely 'optimal' for whatever it is they do - even if they don't do very much_


----------



## Ajax Bay (9 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> What I mean is poor in relation to optimal. It is my opinion, that most of us, whilst we may be 'competent' cyclists, are cycling in a way which is far from optimal, and this is why we may encounter aches and pains, and injuries. I find the same with runners, or those who do not exercise. Modern lifestyle tends to lead to poor core strength, poor in relation to what it 'should' be, and in relation to what would be optimal.





S-Express said:


> Anyone new to cycling, with 'sub-optimal' core strength* for cycling, simply needs to cycle regularly and they will gain optimal core strength for cycling....by cycling.


Simply cycling, same as 'simply running' is a simplistic approach. A 'normal' rider may gain some (but nowhere near optimal) core strength by simply cycling regularly but would gain it more effectively by targeted gym/floor exercises. @bozmandb9 clearly has expertise in this area and I agree with him, drawing on my previous decent level running experience. All sportsmen and women would be well advised to add (or substitute if necessary) core strength work to their training programme, from an early age. It is so attractive not so to do - "I just love running/cycling, I don't want to 'waste' time in the gym".

People may 'get away' with not doing this for ages, especially if they follow several sports which exercise a wider range of muscles, but in due course, poor core strength will catch up with you, and likely injury will follow injury: the body is so interlinked. DAMHIK I thoroughly encourage young men/women like @S-Express and the OP who want to cycle further/longer/faster, and even those old enough for a Senior Railcard, to adopt a plan of core strength training, as well as getting out on their bike.


----------



## RedRider (9 Jan 2017)

This is better than *The Gossage—Vardebedian Papers*


----------



## S-Express (9 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> I thoroughly encourage young men/women like @S-Express



First things first - I'm flattered you think I'm 'young'... I've been racing/training for more than 20 years years now, and coaching for the last 5 years or so Anyway...



Ajax Bay said:


> A 'normal' rider may gain some (but nowhere near optimal) core strength by simply cycling regularly but would gain it more effectively by targeted gym/floor exercises



Cycling develops the core sufficiently to enable cycling - same as it does for all the other muscles used while cycling. There's nothing special about the 'core' which means it behaves differently and responds differently to stimulus than any other muscle in the human body - if it did, scientists would have written papers on it. Your argument implies that it is not possible to ride a bike effectively without undertaking some gym work first, which is nonsense, obviously.



Ajax Bay said:


> but in due course, poor core strength will catch up with you, and likely injury will follow injury:



Unless you have any evidence for this, I'm going to call this as alarmist nonsense. As I said before, a deficient core may require intervention. but, as far as I'm aware, the principal causes of non-accidental injuries in cycling are down to things like poor bike fit and over-use/over-reaching to do more/harder cycling than a rider is capable of at the time. Poor bike fit can give you problems in the core area, potentially - but it is not the fault of the core - it is the fault of poor bike fit.

Seriously, why do people think that the 'core' is so fundamentally different to every other muscle group, that it behaves differently when exercised? You exercise a muscle and it then adapts to the demands placed on it.


----------



## Ajax Bay (9 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Your argument implies that it is not possible to ride a bike effectively without undertaking some gym work first, which is nonsense, obviously.


Your inference is nonsense: please re-read what I said and seek to comprehend it. Please also note that I said "gym/floor exercises". These can easily be done at home, or outdoors - don't want these essential exercises to be tarred with the 'in a gym' brush.
What about extracting and showing the people you coach @bozmandb9 's comment, your response and mine, so they can see what some people (not you) think about core strength?


----------



## Sharky (9 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> First things first - I'm flattered you think I'm 'young'... I've been racing/training for more than 20 years years now, and coaching for the last 5 years or so Anyway...



Only 20 years - you must be young - or started late.
Cheers Keith


----------



## S-Express (9 Jan 2017)

Sharky said:


> Only 20 years



I said 'more than' - I was being modest.


----------



## S-Express (9 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> What about extracting and showing the people you coach @bozmandb9 's comment, your response and mine, so they can see what some people (not you) think about core strength?



Doing that would be giving them incorrect information, in my view. All you have to do in order to correct me is offer evidence that: 

a) cycling itself is not sufficient in order to develop the core for cycling
b) 'non-optimal' core strength is a major cause of cycling injuries and poor fit and over-reaching are _not_ the principal cause of non-impact related cycling injuries
c) the 'core' muscles are somehow different in their response to exercise stimulus, when compared to every other muscle in the human body.

Good luck with that.

I'm not against core work as such, I just don't like reading nonsense like _'you need a strong core to cycle'_. Obviously, as I have said before - if you have some kind of pre-existing condition, or if you want to do core work for any other reasons other than cycling, then feel free. It's certainly not harmful, providing the time spent exercising your core does not eat into time spent improving your aerobic capacity, threshold or VO2 max.


----------



## dim (9 Jan 2017)

I think that the OP is totally confused now ... his question was:

_I am building up a new road bike and currently researching my seatpost, bars and stem. However there seems to be very little information on which stems are best for soaking up road buzz. Anyone for any recommendations or come acrosss any tests?_

now people are telling him to do core strength exercises, yoya, pilates, push ups, sit ups and squats


----------



## S-Express (9 Jan 2017)

dim said:


> now people are telling him to do core strength exercises, yoya, pilates, push ups, sit ups and squats



daft, isn't it.


----------



## bozmandb9 (10 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> daft, isn't it.



Yes, I must be really stupid to think that slumping on the bike, because of weak postural muscles, could have any relationship to pain through the hands. I think I need to get British Cycling to re-write some of their training manuals too.

Think I'll cancel all my PT clients, and cycle coaching courses, and tell everybody they can get all the expertise from armchair experts through t'interweb, who repeatedly demand evidence, whilst offering none. I'm out now. You know what they say about 'you can argue with an ....'


----------



## S-Express (10 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Yes, I must be really stupid to think that slumping on the bike, because of weak postural muscles, could have any relationship to pain through the hands. I think I need to get British Cycling to re-write some of their training manuals too.
> 
> Think I'll cancel all my PT clients, and cycle coaching courses, and tell everybody they can get all the expertise from armchair experts through t'interweb, who repeatedly demand evidence, whilst offering none. I'm out now. You know what they say about 'you can argue with an ....'



Or alternatively, you could leave aside all your silly 'appeals to authority' and just answer all the points like I asked you. I've explained rationally and logically why I think core strength is not as important for cycling as you seem to think it is. You, on the other hand, claim it is something which must be addressed, while offering no physiological explanation which stands up to even the most moderate scrutiny. A true armchair expert is one who can't support his assertions. I did, now it's your turn.


----------



## dim (10 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Yes, I must be really stupid to think that slumping on the bike, because of weak postural muscles, could have any relationship to pain through the hands. I think I need to get British Cycling to re-write some of their training manuals too.
> 
> Think I'll cancel all my PT clients, and cycle coaching courses, and tell everybody they can get all the expertise from armchair experts through t'interweb, who repeatedly demand evidence, whilst offering none. I'm out now. You know what they say about 'you can argue with an ....'


----------



## bozmandb9 (10 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> Or alternatively, you could leave aside all your silly 'appeals to authority' and just answer all the points like I asked you. I've explained rationally and logically why I think core strength is not as important for cycling as you seem to think it is. You, on the other hand, claim it is something which must be addressed, while 1 *offering no physiological explanation* which stands up to even the most moderate scrutiny. A true armchair expert is one who can't 2 *support his assertions. I did*, now it's your turn.



1. I guess the British cycling link counted for nothing

2. Where?

Anyway, take it or leave it, I have better things to do. I'm out. Enjoy your armchair, pad your handlebars well, and carry on 'warrior'ing, I'm sure it's a valiant cause criticising well meant advice from a qualified individual, you should be very proud of your valiant efforts.


----------



## S-Express (11 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> 1. I guess the British cycling link counted for nothing



Correct - it counted for absolultely nothing. Although if you were able to explain how an opinion article on 'hand and wrist pain' translates into a case for 'essential core strengthening', (when the article itself doesn't even mention it), then I'm all ears.



bozmandb9 said:


> 2. Where?



I have explained to you why I think your reliance on 'core strength' is a fallacy, using factual observations about core muscles and how they respond to stimulus. If you want to disagree with that, then again, I'm all ears.

If you want to see a round-up of studies on the effectiveness of core strength in athletic performance, then have a scan through these, although be warned, they might challenge your seemingly-entrenched views on the topic:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19026017 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22784233

So, you've given me your opinion and a link to an article on the BC website which doesn't even address the issue we are talking about. In return, I have given you my opinion and a couple of links to peer-reviewed scientific studies which do rather seem to back up what I am saying, just a bit. Well, quite a lot, actually.



bozmandb9 said:


> I'm sure it's a valiant cause criticising well meant advice from a qualified individual



Is that another appeal to authority?



bozmandb9 said:


> you should be very proud of your valiant efforts.



This is a discussion forum. I took issue with something you said and you responded by patronising me. So in return, I have responded by proving you wrong. So the ball is now in your court. That's how these things work. If you don't want to discuss this stuff, then don't make statements which you can't validate.


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Jan 2017)

S-Express said:


> I have explained to you why I think your reliance on 'core strength' is a fallacy, using factual observations about core muscles and how they respond to stimulus. If you want to disagree with that, then again, I'm all ears


"Time on the turbo and out on the road will build your fitness and power, but if you want to see real improvement in your bike times, you need to look at working on the muscle groups used while cycling – off the bike. Cycling is about more than just legs. Working on your core, hips, shoulders and upper body strength with cycling in mind will lead to better stability on the bike and greater efficiency through your pedal stroke."
https://www.britishtriathlon.org/ne...oning-exercises-to-boost-your-bike-times_6764


----------



## S-Express (23 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> "Time on the turbo and out on the road will build your fitness and power, but if you want to see real improvement in your bike times, you need to look at working on the muscle groups used while cycling – off the bike. Cycling is about more than just legs. Working on your core, hips, shoulders and upper body strength with cycling in mind will lead to better stability on the bike and greater efficiency through your pedal stroke."
> https://www.britishtriathlon.org/ne...oning-exercises-to-boost-your-bike-times_6764


In what way does linking to another belief-based opinion article move the debate on? If you want to dispute the science, then come up with actual studies that refute it.


----------



## Ajax Bay (23 Jan 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> I guess the British cycling link counted for nothing


Here's a BC link:
*"Apples have cores, cyclists don’t*
"Within British Cycling, the expression, core stability is no longer used and instead functional trunk strength and robustness are the watchwords. Functional trunk strength and co-ordination is what is needed to be able to pedal strongly, perform on the bike tasks such as putting on a rain cape and, in the case of track sprinters, lift heavy weights in the gym. Robustness is the capacity to absorb training and avoid injury both on and off the bike."
and this one:
"by being more robust and resilient, you will be less likely to injure yourself"


----------



## S-Express (23 Jan 2017)

Not really sure what point you are trying to make by re-posting stuff like this. LIke I already said, belief-based appeals to authority do not validate anything.


----------

