Wider vs. Narrower Handlebar
- Thread starter meehs
- Start date
Yeah, and 3T's claim is legit -- in fact, my builder freaked out when he first assembled the bike; to compensate for the lower clearence, he set the brakes tighter than I'd have liked.
I loosened them to my liking, and find that the total effect of the 7800's compact ergonomics and the 3T MORE's trick-bends make for a very comfortable setup. It's all quite nice.
Deda makes a bar in narrow widths (38 and 36 Outside) called 4Girls. I use the 38 (which is about 36 c-c) and I'm a guy who races Masters. My arms are straight when on the drops and anything wider feels like I'm pulling on a wheelbarrow when trying to put on the power. When I started racing in the early 70's there were lots of 36 c-c bars available and now they're nearly impossible to get (I still have my Cinelli 66-36 bars on a bike). I'll bet that many women have narrow shoulders and would really like to find narrower bars. I could only find these Deda bars in Canada.
Discovered SalsaCycles has three narrow AL road bars in their lineup, two of which offer a shorter reach (though I don’t see any weights listed), and Ritchey offers one (BioMax Pro Road). Check out the Salsa and dealer link below.
www.salsacycles.com/site/handlebarProroad.htm
www.excelsports.com/new.asp?page=8&description=Poco+Handlebar&vendorCode=SALSA&major=1&minor=15
The Salsa and Ritchey bars have an extreme anatomic bend (where the curve reverses into the palm), whereas the Deda has a simpler bend. So there are choices for people that like one or the other. The Deda 4Girls has the same bend as the popular Deda 215, which is somewhat close to the old Cinelli 66, but not as deep a drop (about 1 cm less).
The main factor here is personal preference. Having said that, I would go for as narrow a bar width as possible. I ride a 42 cm bar width, and it provides much more control when jumping in and out of the saddle eg. when climbing. (For how NOT to do it, look at Manuel Beltran for example - he just looks ridiculous). There is also the considerable aerodynamic advantage of a narrow bar width whilst in the saddle. If you're a sprinter, then a slightly wider bar width might be worth considering to get more leverage with the arms.
I don't thnk wider for more leverage in a sprint makes sense. You don't need greater sidewase strength, you want to put the pull point in line with your pedal stroke and the tire contact with the ground. Imagine having a bar that was 100 cm wide, does it seem that it would give you better leveage for the sprint? On the other hand, if the bar is too narrow, it becomes difficult to control and you waste your concentration on stabilizing the bike rather than putting your energies into going forward. Also if the bar is too wide, it will be slightly slower to respond which could give you less control if you know how to correctly handle the narrower width. Ideally, people would spend at least several days with different width bars to see how they work for them; just jumping on one for a test ride is always going to feel wrong if it's not what they have become accustomed to.
BTW, I use 36 c-c bars and I won the uphill sprint in a RR yesterday. Also, many track bars seem to come in narrower widths than road bars.
BTW, I use 36 c-c bars and I won the uphill sprint in a RR yesterday. Also, many track bars seem to come in narrower widths than road bars.
I've always heard that a wider bar gives you more leverage. It makes sense because the lever-arm would be measured perpendicular to the centerline of the bike (looking down on the bike from the top). That's why single-speed riders like wide bars. The leverage they can generate with the wider bar counters the torque applied to the cranks when you're climbing a steep grade in a (relatively) tall gear. They also often use longer cranks to for more leverage. Same principal. Pretty straight-forward.
xcspace, i also use narrow bars but what you are saying is not very accurate from my understanding. The bar width must be wider than the crank width (Q-factor) as your arms cannot produce as much force as your legs and thus the leverage/torque is needed to even out the force put on the pedals by the legs. This is basic physics, in saying this, i think that there is definitely a limit to the advantage gained by this method. I think i may have mentioned this b4................would/could crank length and Q-factor play a part in the width of bars required to maintain an equilibrium within this system? Just a thought.........
Cheers
Cheers
Over the last several decades, Q-factor has also increased, which may be in correlation with the wider bars of today. My wife's 2004 Ultegra has a Q-factor of 155, my 2002 Record is 146, and my 1972 is only 136. I try to keep my Q-factor to a minimum which may also make it easier to use narrower bars (along with my narrow shoulders).
Good point and I had not put the two trends together before.
Good point and I had not put the two trends together before.
.......and longer crank arms. All three have increased seemingly to help generate more torque (I can’t think of another reason, but maybe there is one). In the end it’s what your body is comfortable with, that works for you to achieve the desired results.
A small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. Thus your output is the same. To increase your output you increase the force. You need the upper body strength to take advantage of the leverage afforded by wide bars. If you have it, any additional force applied to a wider bar will transfer more power from your upper body to the pedals......... in my opinion. I’m 6-1 , 165lbs, strong upper body, and use a 39 c-c bar w/ 170mm cranks. If I went to 172.5’s I could go to a wider bar say a 42 o-o, simply to help turn the cranks over in a taller gear when out of the saddle.
A small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. Thus your output is the same. To increase your output you increase the force. You need the upper body strength to take advantage of the leverage afforded by wide bars. If you have it, any additional force applied to a wider bar will transfer more power from your upper body to the pedals......... in my opinion. I’m 6-1 , 165lbs, strong upper body, and use a 39 c-c bar w/ 170mm cranks. If I went to 172.5’s I could go to a wider bar say a 42 o-o, simply to help turn the cranks over in a taller gear when out of the saddle.
Similar threads
