Integrated bikes are in fashion whether you like it or not, a trend that sees any cables, hydraulic hoses and electrical wires concealed at the bike’s front end.
In part one of this feature, we covered how integrated cable routing has impacted the jobs of professional mechanics. It’s safe to say the mechanics we spoke to felt bike manufacturers have much room for improvement with how integrated cable routing is implemented.
In this article, we’ll take a look at integration from the perspective of professional bike fitters.
As a brief refresher, integrated cable routing typically sees any cables and hoses routed underneath or through a handlebar and stem, through the upper-headset bearing and into the head tube, before heading to their respective locations (the brakes, derailleurs and so on).
Although you gain a clean aesthetic and marginally better aerodynamics, routine maintenance tasks become significantly more involved.
Depending on the cable-routing system in question, simply swapping a stem for a different-length model or changing the handlebar for one with more preferable dimensions may mean disconnecting any cables and hoses on the bike. This becomes significantly more labour-intensive.
And it’s not only road and gravel bikes – integrated cable routing has also been ported over to mountain bikes and can even be found on some hybrid commuter models.
Are the aesthetic and claimed aerodynamic benefits of fully integrated cable routing worth it?
We contacted three bike fitters from different backgrounds to get their opinions on the topic, including what the most annoying aspects are from a fitting perspective, how costs have changed and how they would improve integrated designs.
What are the most annoying aspects of integration for bike fitters?
All the bike fitters we spoke to agreed the most annoying aspect of integration is the limits it can place on adjustability.
James Thomas is the director of Bicycle Richmond in London and has a wealth of fitting experience, having previously worked for Sigma Sports and Pearson Cycles.
Bicycle Richmond is a high-end shop but differs from other establishments in that the brands it stocks (such as Pinarello, Moots, Festka, Sarto and Bastion) have been cherry-picked for fit purposes.
Thomas has previously been a guest on the BikeRadar Podcast, where he discussed what a bike fit is and why you might want to get one.
Thomas’ main gripe with integrated front ends is “the total lack of flexibility” for bike fitters, such as not being able to rotate a handlebar if it’s a one-piece cockpit.
With a two-piece system, there’s typically a range of adjustment to tilt the handlebar to your needs – but with a one-piece system, you’re stuck with the shape.
“In some cases, if you have a system that’s proprietary and there isn’t the shape that suits the rider, there’s no rotation or adjusting [that would rectify the issue]. Outside of stem length, the reach is pretty much fixed,” Thomas says.
This is a view shared by Bianca Broadbent, a qualified physiotherapist and bike fitter who heads up Fit Your Bike.
Broadbent says the most annoying aspect of integration from a bike-fitting perspective is “100 per cent the lack of autonomy over the bar design – shape, flare, width, drop, etc – to match what the consumer needs, not necessarily realises they want at the time.”
Dan Smith, the owner of UK Bike Fit in Matlock, Derbyshire, further adds “Quite often, narrow bars are only available with short stem sizes (and vice versa), so for example, riders that need a 130mm stem and 38cm bars, it may not be possible to buy that component.”
Opting for a bike with a one-piece cockpit can lock you into a certain design and if you don’t get on with it, you might be stuck with it unless you buy a new bike – a costly mistake.
The proprietary cockpits found on Canyon’s high-end road bikes, such as the Ultimate and Endurace, are the only options available for those bikes.
While Canyon has sought to address some of these concerns with the updated cockpit on its 2024 Aeroad CFR, it still only offers two options for handlebar shape.
Thomas doesn’t necessarily think integration is a problem in itself, but it’s compounded by the general poor attitude towards bike fits from riders, shops and brands in that a fit often isn’t prioritised as highly as it should be as part of a new bike purchase.
He says “bike shops should make a strong fit-first philosophy and you should get fitted first before you buy a bike”. With the way integrated designs are going, having a fit before spending your hard-earned cash on an expensive bike that potentially isn’t optimal for you is a logical move.
Thomas also thinks the problem isn’t necessarily for the fitter but for the consumer. “If they’ve bought a Trek Madone for example and they’re told they need a new cockpit, that’s the consumer’s problem, not the fitter”, he says – the financial brunt of that change is to be financed by the rider.
This also drags out the bike-fit process because the rider would need to buy a part the bike fitter doesn’t necessarily stock – a far cry from the days of being able to pick out a conventional stem or handlebar off the shelf.
For the pros and not the average Joes
A common opinion shared by all the bike fitters we spoke to was that integrated cockpits are designed for the pros rather than the average consumer.
“The bike industry is still archaic when it comes to integrated cockpits,” says Thomas, who goes on to explain they’re “designed around a 20-year-old athlete and sold to a 50-year-old, who can afford it. Racers don’t shop in bike shops and represent a minuscule proportion”.
It perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise that road race bikes are designed around the needs of WorldTour racers, given events such as the Tour de France are the sport’s primary shop window. The bikes the pros race have to be commercially available to consumers.
However, we’ve long argued such bikes aren’t what the majority of non-professional riders ought to be buying. As BikeRadar’s senior technical editor, Warren Rossiter, argues, most of us should probably buy an endurance road bike.
This is a view shared by Broadbent, but she also says integrated cockpits can pose challenges for pros.
“Imagine when you do a bike fit within a team and the team has only received a certain number of cockpits, or the shorter cockpit only comes with a wider handlebar – because that’s how the bar was designed.
"The time for cockpit changes can be long and this makes things difficult when you have a short turnaround time or riders want to test positions.”
Riders may want to test the aerodynamics of different positions, or simply decide on what’s more comfortable when they have to be able to ride it for long durations, for example three weeks of the Tour de France.
It’s not as if you can flip the stem or opt for your preferred stem length and handlebar width, if neither is an option.
How could integration be improved?
Smith argues “a one-piece bar and stem doesn't need to exist at all” and that sticking with two-piece systems would solve a lot of fit problems. Although he admits they can look better aesthetically, being able to pick your handlebar of choice means you can get the most important part of the front-end equation right. You’re not locked into a certain reach, handlebar width or shape.
He specifically praises options such as Deda’s Vinci system and Cannondale’s Knot bar and stem, both of which enable the stem length and handlebar width to be adjusted independently.
This is something that many bicycle brands have now reverted back to, such as Specialized and BMC. On the Specialized Tarmac SL8, for example, you’re free to run a conventional 31.8mm handlebar with the integrated stem if you don’t want the fully integrated Roval Rapide cockpit.
BMC is one of the only manufacturers to have stuck with the same integration platform, its ICS Integrated Cockpit System, which it introduced on the original Roadmachine back in 2016.
Although this sees the use of a proprietary steerer tube, with flat faces on its sides for any hoses or electrical wires to route through, BMC manufactures a number of cockpits that are all cross-compatible, including options where you can run a standard, 31.8mm handlebar.
This is unlike, for example, Trek which has changed its cockpits several times among product generations. On the Madone platform, for example, the specific cockpits that have been developed for the last four generations are not compatible with each other. That said, each of these generations of Madone can be run with a conventional stem, even if some may think it looks unsightly.
Thomas doesn’t necessarily think integration itself is a negative. He says “it doesn’t make my life more difficult, but it makes the consumer’s life more difficult”.
He’s frustrated by customers “settling for something that’s not correct” when they’re in between sizes for example, which he says “is a roundabout way of saying something doesn’t fit them”.
That said, Thomas would always advise going for the shorter option if you fall between two cockpits.
He sings the praises of the MOST Talon bars found on the Pinarello Dogma range, with 16 different options – more than most of its competitors. Still, Thomas feels there aren’t enough choices for smaller riders, with the cockpit starting from a 42cm bar / 90mm stem option (it’s worth remembering, though, that Pinarello measures its handlebars from the outside to the outside, so this will be akin to a 40cm handlebar from other manufacturers).
Broadbent also thinks the way to improve integration would be to build in more adjustability. She acknowledges “some bike brands have a nice blend of aero vs adjustable features”, and always favours backwards-compatibility with other handlebars and stems.
Should the bike industry adopt a single internal cable-routing system?
Thomas says he can’t ever see this happening, but would “be all for it if it was well-designed and had enough options”. He acknowledges “it would certainly help a lot of people”.
He has a more pessimistic viewpoint and says “it’s all about selling a lesser quality at a higher price”, citing brands speccing more own-brand parts such as cockpits, wheels and saddles – which in his view is a tactic designed to elicit bigger profit margins for the manufacturer.
Of course, we’ve no doubt bike brands would disagree with that sentiment.
Indeed, companies such as Specialized, Giant and Trek – which all make extensive use of ‘house brand’ components – typically argue that designing and manufacturing component parts in-house allows for improved system performance, compared to speccing stock parts from third-party brands.
Andrew Juskaitis, Giant’s global product marketing manager, explains the brand “finds it imperative to design our own componentry to seamlessly integrate with our own framesets [...] to deliver the performance characteristics” desired. He goes on to say “our bicycles ride better because we engineer the majority of their design”.
Do customers consider the fit when buying an integrated bike?
There was a real split between the fitters on this question.
Thomas says that, in his experience, “fit is the absolute last consideration for far too many customers, unfortunately”.
He believes it’s as a result of the world we live in, where you can readily buy parts online and not be aware of the fit limitations they impose. He says he sees far too many people wheeling their brand-new bike into the fit studio and he can instantly see it’s not right.
Broadbent is less pessimistic and says “sometimes, customers are aware of it being more awkward” but acknowledges “they might not anticipate that stock availability is difficult, the additional labour or the cost of packing a bike into a bike bag”. She’s also critical of buying bikes online because “you may not realise how challenging it can be to replace a cockpit”.
Smith thinks his customers consider the fit implications of an integrated cockpit and says UK Bike Fit “gets lots of enquiries that highlight the fact [a rider has] an integrated cockpit, asking whether it would be an issue within the bike fit”.
While having a less-than-optimal bike fit might seem trivial at a glance, the implications of an excessively poor bike fit can be disastrous.
Broadbent, for example, says the implications are “almost limitless”. At worst, “you could have a really expensive bike that is potentially unrideable”, and warns you could develop “compression-related neuropathies such as carpal tunnel and ulnar nerve” if left unchecked.
Of course, if you have a good idea of how you like your bike set up, or aren’t suffering any specific issues, you may not need a professional bike fit.
However, it’s always worth double-checking whether a new part or bike suits your needs before making a purchase. If you’re not sure, consulting a professional fitter before dropping a big chunk of cash might save you headaches down the line.
How does integration affect a bike-fit appointment?
Thomas says he always aims to keep costs down for his customers. His process sees the rider fitted on a jig first, with the position then logged before it's transferred to a bike. As you’d expect, if the position needs to change and that requires the hydraulic hoses to be cut and then bled, that will incur additional costs.
“If you have a Ford, you pay a certain amount, if you have a Ferrari, you’re going to be paying more,” Thomas says, using the analogy to highlight the difference between integrated and non-integrated bikes.
Broadbent doesn’t think integration affects her appointments because of the nature of her work, where she primarily works with professional teams.
However, she says she “tries to screen in advance to see if the bike might be a problem”, and Broadbent will research the options available in advance too.
“I usually will also liaise with the client before the appointment to highlight some limitations – it is important to set expectations and also ensure that their trip is worthwhile,” she explains.
Smith says he “uses fitting jigs, stem sizers, adjustable bars and other pieces of fit equipment when an integrated cockpit stops us from adjusting the bike”.
In a similar vein to Thomas, Smith explains the inconvenience is more for the customer who needs to invest in the time and/or money required to purchase and swap over new components..
Smith says UK Bike Fit “offers free follow-ups for bike fit appointments, partly for this reason”, though, to avoid a wasted journey.
What about overall fitting costs?
While the mechanics we spoke to in the first article cited the increased labour time as a significant driver of labour costs, all of the fitters say the cost of a bike fit stays the same.
However, they all cite that costs will increase if workshop time is incurred to swap a component, as well as the cost of any replacement cockpit parts – which Broadbent says can be “greater in cost than the bike fit itself”.
Would our fitters opt for integration on their own bikes?
Despite our fitters’ general aversion to integration, both Thomas and Smith said they would opt for an integrated cockpit if money were no object.
However, Thomas says he would opt for a conventional, two-piece bar and stem for flexibility if he didn’t already know his fit measurements.
Broadbent would be less inclined, though, saying that because her hands are quite small, she’d feel nervous about not having the option to rotate the handlebar slightly.
Either way, if you’re in the market for a new bike, the comments from these bike fitters highlight the importance of triple-checking the geometry is going to work for you – especially if you’ll be locked into an integrated front end.
