BMC_Kid 

Only speaking for myself but I set up modern shift/brake levers to be close to parallel to the top of the bars. Ergonomically, they work best for that way but I've seen some set them up much lower down, on the front of the curve. To each their own. Everyone should ultimately set up their bike so that it is comfortable and everything works as it should.

Here's my Zullo setup:

smd4

The modern pros would agree with you:

SJX426 

I have explored a number of options and configurations. Probably not all. The driver is the ability to use as many hand positions as possible and still feel comfortable using the brakes.

Although I haven't thought about it, match period correct bars and levers make sense. Even then it can be a challenge.

WRT HB rotation, I like to have the flats nearly parallel to my back when using them. This points the bar ends somewhere between the brake and the axle, both of which are extreme. Having the flats parallel to the ground locates the upper portion of the bar to have a steep slope to the hoods. This might work if the TT/stem were quite short.

Since most of the bars in my garage are older and Cinelli's, the mounting of the levers is dependent on the bend. After fiddling around on placement, I find the recommendation for the tips of the levers to be no lower than the plane of teh flats on the drops to be best. This applies to both non-aero and Ergos.

Now I will have to examine and focus on the cockpit on all the bikes! Thanks guys!

But like saddle location, fore and aft, it is a continual search for the right spot.

pastorbobnlnh 

Thanks for at least giving my photo credit despite not asking me if it could be brought into your argument about how I must be an "(un)conventual... contortionist... (with) problems and pain...." Thank you for using me as your worst-case example of how not to set up your vintage Schwinn Super Sport.

You have really been , while thread hijacking. 1964Supersport asked about his handlebar setup to improve his comfort. By all means you can make suggestions about what works for you. It quickly became obvious that you prefer to set-up your bikes based on the set-ups on mid-eighties to mid-nineties professional peloton racers. But what grants you the right to criticize others?

However, you fail to take into account that an early 1960s Schwinn Super Sport, is, and will never be, a 1990 circa Eddie Merckx, built and kitted out for the Tour de France. Have you ever owned, ridden, or seen in person a 1960s Super Sport?

Or are you 65 or older, have a few orthopedic medical conditions, and possibly a few pounds heavier than the recommended BMI? But does any of this really matter? No, because you are not the OP. The OP eventually takes suggestions and determines what works best for him or herself.


Above: 1983 Lotus Super Pro Aero. Below: 1970 Schwinn Super Sport (I do ride both weekly)

Now, just to upset your sensibilities further--- feast your eyes upon the set-up of my Lotus! Gaze upon the position of my bars. Marvel at the placement of my levers. Cringe at how I must contort myself to reach and brake from the drops.

Now move along--- please!

fabiofarelli

That's a very nice bike, surely for its age. A little change of the cable routing would make it perfect.

scarlson 

I can post pictures of road racers from the internet, too.

You gotta wonder what Bartali and Coppi might say about all this.



Or the Herse team at the Poly de Chanteloup?


Levers pointed skyward indeed. Are we really gonna say René Herse was wrong to put the bars this way, on the winning bike that he custom made for his daughter and son-in-law for PBP? How about Routens? Or do you think they should have switched to hybrids?



Not just different strokes for different folks, but we're talking about different eras. Strictly speaking, the OP's Schwinn, with its slack geometry and unhooded levers, shares more DNA with the machines in the above examples from the '40s and '50s than it does with the '80s TDF riders. He should not be afraid to tilt the bars up some. It's normal for such a bike.

smd4

Yes...the star of this thread has got to be the bike. We need more photos of her, detail ones as well as overall. I mean, is there even a spot of rust on those chrome parts?

Take a bow, 1964Supersport.

Mr. 66

I like the bar setup on the SS here, for me though I would push the levers forwards.

I, myself look at a bike and think "How do I want to use this bike?" Some I want to setup for distance.

She's going the distance...


She's built for speed...

Doug Fattic 

1964supersport, it looks like your Super Sport has been adjusted well and ready to give you many miles of healthy exercise. Where you and your bicycle are now may be the end of your bicycle improvement journey. Those things are designed to be indestructible so most likely - if you maintenance it properly - it will outlast you. It is possible you might get curious about getting a better bike (nothing wrong with yours) and if so you might try looking for a 21" Trek sport touring steel bike made before 1987. Or a Miyata. Then you would be going from a frame made out of heavy straight gauge tubing to one that has lighter double butted tubes. Those bikes are lighter but more importantly provides a nicer ride quality. And eventually you can arrive - if you have the money and ambition - to get a custom made frame. That is the world I live in now. Primarily I teach cycling enthusiasts how to make and paint their own custom frames. But before I die, I'll work on making my not-as-nice-as-yours 1965 Super Sport better as a remembrance to my dad and late teen years before I moved on.

Oldairhead 

You guys are all wrong. My way is the right way!

1964Supersport

Thanks everyone for your responses !

Road Fan

For me that Cinelli cockpit/saddle arrangement would have been comfortable for short rides, if it was a 52 or 54 cm, and if we entered the Time Machine and went back 50 years. For me now I would want the top of the bars not more than 2 cm below the saddle top, since in that position going to the drops is comfortable. But I also need to spend most of a ride on the tops and hoods, so I want a nearly level drop and a nearly level top, like an old-fashioned Maes-style bar.

At the same time, I don’t think I’m well-suited to classic Italians any more. I like to move the saddle back from the BB to center my weight over the BB, and many Italian classics have seat tube angles 75 degrees back to 73. For my “geometry” I want more like 70 or 71 degrees, like the classic English Club-style bikes of the early 1950s, and some pre-1970 Peugeots. I was never a racer, but as many of my generation I regarded the refinement of road racing bikes as the pinnacle. I also prepared more for long rides than for fast.

As a cyclist solidly in the 50+++ cadre, I want to ride a lot and get better than I am now, but that requires bikes I can ride comfortably. I would think nothing of changing bars, stems, seat posts or saddles to dial in the fit of a bike with a frame that offers me what I think I need. And, maybe perfiection would be a custom.

For me, the idea that “it must be a good fit because it is just like the bike company designed it” is not useful to individual cyclists. It may be best for vintage satisfaction or collectible value, but those goals have nothing to do with comfort and long-term rideability, such as repeated 60 mile days..

thinktubes 

I’m all arms and torso

Road Fan

The highlighted statement is most likely not applicable to many of the participants here. I, PastorBob, and many others in this forum are into our retirement phases, and have been riding bikes at least intermittently since our teenage years - up to 55, maybe 65 years per person of riding and setting up our own bikes (I fall into the former category, not the latter!). I think very few of us instantly modified every new or newly acquired bike before riding it a while and allowing the true plusses and minuses to become apparent in practice. Theory is interesting and may be a source of new ideas in our searches for the best fit, but we know through sometimes painful experience that not everything new is personally worth trying, and that the “conventional” for 20-something racers or aspirational racers, does not itself represent an ideal which will work for others, if it in fact works in general for the cadre of younger folks.

smd4

You seem to recognize that certain bikes don't fit your current riding requirements. I disagree about modifying the bike as you suggest. I stated something very like this in a previous post that the mods deleted for reasons known only to them.

There comes a time when a thoroughbred "racing" bike won't be suited to older riders. As you state, comfort and long-term rideability may eventually be the goal. I am probably approaching this phase myself, eventually. But I don't plan on modifying a Cinelli to suit my needs. It's a racing bike, and anything I do won't change that. I'm not going to cock the bars towards the heavens; I'm not going to point my saddle to the ground; I'm not going to install bar-end shifters. I'm not going to buy a foot-long Nitto stem or 40mm wide tires. These are all shortcuts to avoid the inevitable. When I get to that point, there will be other, more viable options, like hybrids or, God forbid, e-bikes.

smd4

I'm 56.

Road Fan

Ok, but I think my point remains.

Road Fan

There’s no reason not to try to make a Cinelli or similar comfortable to suit, but I would be sad if any damage is done. I know that for me that approach does not work.

And I am not suggesting you do any of those things. I don’t do them either. But back in the day, racing bikes had frames which were well-suited to smooth out bumps due to light DB steel tubing, handle well, enable no-handing, and carry small to medium saddle bags, unless you’re Jobst Brandt who packed a large Carradice saddlebag on his light tubular-equipped all-road double-butted touring tool.

With touring, if one thinks it’s good for touring, it’s good for touring. Standards have nothing to do with it.

Road Fan

Photographed a few days after I got it, all I added was the S-A saddle. Needed full over haul, now working on brake cables.

1984 (or so) Mondonico, Columbus tubing, tubulars, Campy 3x10.

smd4

Yeah, I would never try to make the Cinelli "comfortable." It wasn't made for comfort. When I get to the point that I need "comfort," there will be other more-viable, less-costly options.

Other things I would never put on the Cinelli: A triple crank and long-cage derailleur.

Your Mondonico is gorgeous. I think we need more pictures.

BMC_Kid 

55 and here’s my newest ride and the one getting most miles these days.

1964Supersport

Speaking of weight I did happen to weigh my bike the other day, 27 lbs.

1964Supersport

I may very well want to get a second bike in the near future. For now I'm really enjoying old blue. It's like I reconnected with an old friend.

smd4

What it lacks in weight, it makes up for with style. In spades.

gkamieneski

Ergo 8sp

105 10sp