Conference noted::bicycle

    Rich,
    
    I've had the old Profiles and Scott.  I prefer Scott for the following 
    reasons:
    
    
    -The Scotts are narrower.  My preference for a narrower "foot print"
     has more to do with comfort than aerodynamics.  That is, when I'm
     not using the bars, I like to have enough room on the top portion
     of the bars to grip.  
    
    -The elbow pads can be moved around to a variety of positions rather
     than the one-piece-construction that my old profiles had.
    
    -Ease of installation/removal (one allen bolt per arm).
    
    -Versatility-With a little creativity, you can use just about any 
     shifting system made.  Profile "locks you in" to their systems or
     a clone.  In any case, I still use down tube shifters.
    
    IMHO, unless you can really ride (average 23+ MPH) the best feature
    these bars have is there tendancy to STAY OUT OF THE WAY when not
    in use.  Conventional wisdom states that there of no real benefits 
    unless you are going 23 MPH or over.  There are only certain stretches
    where I maintain 23+, that is why I use the down tube shifters.
    
    r�  

    I've got a pair of the old Profiles, and while I seldom average  >23
    for long periods, I used them quite a lot.  They are great in head
    winds, on long rides they offer another position, and they speed up
    the commute.  I use downtube shifters as I don't see a need to have
    them on the bar - I can reach down and shift while I'm aero with only
    occaisional deviations from my line.  The Profiles have the advantage
    that you can adjust the length to what is most comfortable for you.
    
    Rich

>>    in use.  Conventional wisdom states that there of no real benefits 
>>    unless you are going 23 MPH or over.  There are only certain stretches
>>    where I maintain 23+, that is why I use the down tube shifters.
    
    
    RAAM riders seldom ride over 23 mph, but they were mainly responsible
    for developing the bars. John Lee is a far better authority than me,
    but the aero bars take the strain off your neck and since their
    popularisation in RAAM, the amount of 'neck collapses' has reduced.
    
    Graham.

     I have had both Profile and Scotts (still have the Scotts). I vote
    for the Scotts too for all the reasons stated.
    
     Another thing I hate about the Profiles is the way they've engineer-
    ed the foam pads, e.g. the nut to tighten the pad rests is under the
    adhered (unless you have Airstrikes - then they're vlecro'd - a whole
    other set of problems with this design) foam pad. If the rest loosens
    you have to slit the pad to retighten... And they do loosen.
    
     Re; 23+mph for the advantage: I have never read that the ROI came in
    at 23+mph... I know the disk wheels are advertised at 15+mph. 
    
     Personal experience tells me that aero bars deliver at less than
    23+mph in aerodynamics and positions.
    
     Chip

    I used Aero bars on my trip to Wisconsin which was at decidedly less
    than 23 mph average.  Of the 1523 miles, I probably used them for
    100 to 200 miles, but they really helped for ducking from the wind on
    the windy days and just changing position when things got monotonous
    or tiresome.
    
    I was still able to go faster when I used them, even with the extra
    weight on the bike and extra frontal area attributable to panniers.
    
    Also, they support my custom made handle bar bag.
    
    Admittedly I might not have needed them if I Had been using an aero
    seatpost. :-)
    
    ed

    	But what about headwind?
    
    	I'm no Aeronautical Engineer, but...
    
    	If you were pedaling at 15 mph, riding directly into a 15 mph wind,
    	would you have the perception of pedaling at a constant 30 mph?
    
    	If so, these aero bars would have a great advantage in almost any
    	headwind? Even if you're only averaging 15 mph, yes?
    
    	Even without an Aero seatpost?

    I have Scott's... but only use them about 5% of the time (level,
    no need to get to the brakes quick, and have room to weave a bit).
    BTW, the default bolts are steel and only took about 10k miles
    worth of sweat before disintegrating.  I have mine at about
    a 25 degree angle, and have some plastic shimmies under the 
    front of the support brackets to increase their angle.
    I did, however, use them extensively this last Saturday on a 112
    mile "century" and averaged 17.8mph.  The best 100mi+ avg I had
    without them was 16.6mph.  -kratz

    
    I have used scott's and own profile ... I prefer profile because they
    are the widest on the market and provide me with the most comfort ...
    Yes the elbow bads are not the best design, but I did not like scott's
    design either because they slipped on me ... I also agree that there is
    benifit in speed and comfort in the 15-23 mph range -- especailly for
    long 60+ mile rides ...
    
    jgk
    

    Scott
    
    For reasons already mentioned, these are my choice -- except I don't 
    like the Scott armrests.  The pads are too thin, so the rests dig into
    my forearms, and rests are held on by a single band, similar to the one
    a break lever uses -- the clamps do not always hold the rests in place 
    if you hit a bump at speed.  So I'm riding with Scott clip-ons and 
    Profile armrests.
    
    Profile
    
    The '92 models are lighter and allow for adjusting the distance between
    armrests.  I've used the Aero II and liked it, but it didn't give me
    the variety of hand positions that the Scotts do.  The AirStryke with
    its flip-up arm rests is a little too gimicky (and expensive).
    
    Cinelli
    
    The clamps on these are closer together, which means they attach to the
    reinforced section of your normal bars -- good news strength-wise, but
    not so good if you have a Cateye or an Avocet mounted there (you have
    to move it).  The clamping mechanism is similar to Mavic (see below),
    so I'm not sure how well it would function (I haven't used Cinellis).
    
    Mavic
    
    These would be the best of the lot if (and it's a *big* if) they stayed
    in place when you hit a bump at speed.  They're infinitely adjustable,
    they have the most comfortable and sturdy armrests, and they allow for
    as much variation in hand position as the Scotts, in my experience. 
    However, no matter how much you tighten the clamps on these, you cannot
    get them to stay at the angle you originally mounted them at.  I trashed
    a set of handlebars before I gave up on getting the clamps tight
    enough.  The bars slip down if you hit a bump, and up if you pull up
    while hammering in a big gear.  Scotts and Profiles, at least in my
    experience, do not do this.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Justin

 Is anyone using the SynTace (I think this is spelled correctly) bars? 
 They have a bridge for the computer to mount between the bars.
 
 Same question about the BioQuartetto bars from 3TTT?

re .8

The '92 Profiles only come in one (narrow) width.  The greater amount that you
can adjust the armrest is supposed to make up for it.  I suppose that the
(recalled) Breeze bar was also aimed into the wider aerobar market, so they
stopped making the Aero II in multiple widths.

I have a medium width '91 Profile bar and a blackburn bag to go in it (holds a
few little things and a cue sheet). I wanted to get another one of the same
size for my new bike, but they don't make them anymore.  I guess that I'll just
have to wait to see if they fix the problems with the Breeze bar.

Rich

    Thanks for all the pointers / insights.
    
    cheers,
     -Rich

i just got a pair of profile aero-II bars (used so if i like 'em i can splurge
and get those nifty-light airstrykes). anyway what is the current wisdom about
position as it relates to aero bars. is there any particular way to set them up
(angle of bars, stem high stem low???) that is viewed as more or less
aerodynamic, comfortable? in the other "aero bar" note changing the seat
position was advocated (the forward and up thing). is this needed? i realize
that bike positioning is very very subjective and also has alot to do with your
physique but just want to get some rules of thumb if there are any.

ps. comments from tall riders with long arms are most welcome!

    In order:
    
    1) Back flat.
    2) Elbows in.
    3) Head down.
    
    Bar angle has no effect; whatever makes you most comfy
    is best.  That is the CW.
    
    
    r�

     I've read that bar angle is critical. The most touted position/angle
    for an aerobar is around 30-35 degrees (^).
    
     That's what I run. One thing to be cognizant of right off the bat...
    It wil not be comfortable. You'll need to do some adjusting bodily.
    
     You're right in assuming that tweeks may need to happen with stem
    height, seatpost height, and seat position (lateral). All of this
    fine tuning will help with the comfortability factor. Again, you\will
    need to get used to be there...
    
     Chip

i'm curious about how people use their aero-bars. do you generally leave them on
all the time or only put them on under certain circumstances (eg. weeknight TT
or weekend century)?

Re: tweeking seat height & fore-aft position and stem height 

for those who mount their aerobars only for special occasions do you change your
seat and stem position every time to your "aero-bar position" and then change
them back to the "road" positions when you take the aerobars off or did you make
the position adjustments once and then leave them?

      I will used to keep them on all the time and just take them off for
    road races. They go on and off so easily it really doesn't matter.
    
      I've always found them an assett on the road training or just goofing
    around.
    
      The adjustments will be subtle so as not to really impact ordinary
    positioning.
    
     Chip

	I'm think about buying a used pair of Scott Lemond II aero bars.
	They are the 11" size.  How do I determine what size I need?  I'm
	6'4" so I guess I would need the largest size.

	Ted

I'm 6' even and have a 34/35 shirt size.  I am currently useing the 13" model.  

I also have a 140 stem so the 13" fits o.k.  When I mount the pads on the handle
bars instead of on the aero bars it fits right.  When the pads are on the aero
bars I have trouble holding on, the pads are a pivot point on my fore arms.  Now
my elbows are closer to the pads and it is much more confortable.

Bottom line if you are 6'4" the 11" bars maybe too small.

Hope this helps,
Tom

Does anyone have any experience with the Syntace C2?

     Nope on the Syntace C2, but I just bought the Airstryke (Profile).
    Haven't used it yet though. I have used the Profile I's - II's and
    Scott's Clip-Ons. I liked the the Scotts the best.
    
     I chose the Airstrykes primarliy because of inputs from fellow riders
    and the articles done on them. Plus I like the idea of having my tops
    available...