H'bar size?

[Kirk Pacenti]

discuss....

[maunahaole]

noodle in 48. comfy.

[BdaGhisallo]

I think 31.8 will be with us for the long haul. From what I have heard, 26.0 is too small to properly make carbon bars since the wall thickness needed in that dimension would make the bar too heavy. I am no scientist so maybe someone with more knowledge than me can enlighten us.

[e-RICHIE]

discuss....
atmo the same nincumpoops who caused the scarcity of
classic shaped bars are the very ones creating the move
over to 31.8 sizes. c'mon people - for cf this is fine, but
for alloy bars as we know them, increasing from 26 yields
a heavier part. there's a point of diminishing return with
making something OS just for the fukc of itmo. will all the
product engineers behind these lame ideas please take a
pasadena. serenity now.

[rphetteplace]

atmo the same nincumpoops who caused the scarcity of
classic shaped bars are the very ones creating the move
over to 31.8 sizes. c'mon people - nor cf this is fine, but
for alloy bars as we know them, increasing from 26 yields
a heavier part. there's a point of diminishing return with
making something OS just for the fukc of itmo. will all the
product engineers behind these lame ideas please take a
pasadena. serenity now.

you should really work on being able to share your feelings :fight: :banana:

[maunahaole]

atmo the same nincumpoops who caused the scarcity of
classic shaped bars are the very ones creating the move
over to 31.8 sizes. c'mon people - nor cf this is fine, but
for alloy bars as we know them, increasing from 26 yields
a heavier part. there's a point of diminishing return with
making something OS just for the fukc of itmo. will all the
product engineers behind these lame ideas please take a
pasadena. serenity now.


Sounds like Jobst Brandt got into the coffee pod.

[davids]

atmo the same nincumpoops who caused the scarcity of
classic shaped bars are the very ones creating the move
over to 31.8 sizes. c'mon people - nor cf this is fine, but
for alloy bars as we know them, increasing from 26 yields
a heavier part. there's a point of diminishing return with
making something OS just for the fukc of itmo. will all the
product engineers behind these lame ideas please take a
pasadena. serenity now.Plus they look bloated, distended, and stoopid.

[Elefantino]

Similar weenieness is behind the move to 1 1/4" bottom bracket bottoms.

(If you can descend with confidence at 50+ mph on a steel fork with a 1" headset, somebody please tell me what was the problem, exactly?)

But, hey. If it moves Amex-wielding sycophants® :eek: to buy expensive carbon bars when cheap alu ones will do, that's, um, brand marketing.

;)

[stevep]

i thk the major reason for the os stuff is:

carbon bars cannot be overtightened at the stem. its generally 5nm for these bolts. in 26.0 there is not enough contact area between bar and stem to hold the things. if they slip ( note some other thread ) basicly they are ruined.
limited contact area damns the 26.0 bar particularly in carbon.
i leave it for someone who cares more to calculate the increase in contact area, its quite a bit. there is no argument here from me infavor of carbon bars. i thk its a poor use of the material but thats my opinion.

in aluminum... less of an issue. but , like it onr not, they are in style now and they are not going away.

also: the industry does this to piss e-richie off. works well i thk..

[Keith A]

26.0 - Good enough? It is for me.

But the availability of bars and stems in this size is already starting to get scarce -- at least the new stuff. Deda still has the 215 in a shallow drop normal bend as does Ritchey. Ritchey is also making their new WCS 4-axis stem in a 26.0mm clamp size.

Some of the mail order shops don't carry anything in the 26.0 size -- Performance Bike & Colorado Cyclist have none, Nashbar has couple of stems and bars, and Excel Sports has the best selection in this size.

I spoke to a rep at Thomson and he stated that they will continue to make their "old" style stems in the 26.0mm size (at least for a while) but only in a -10º angle in black. But none of their new stems will be made in this size.

:fight:

[Darrell]

atmo the same nincumpoops who caused the scarcity of
classic shaped bars are the very ones creating the move
over to 31.8 sizes. c'mon people - for cf this is fine, but
for alloy bars as we know them, increasing from 26 yields
a heavier part. there's a point of diminishing return with
making something OS just for the fukc of itmo. will all the
product engineers behind these lame ideas please take a
pasadena. serenity now.


add all the stupid shapes and bumps and lumps added to the handle bars so they tossers have some thing new on next year's bike show brochure.
Oh, look, seems they are all reintroducing the classic round bend.
How exciting.
I wonder why.
{us Aussies are a sarcastic irreverent lot of swill}
Me thinks, it is like trying to make a better paper clip. You cannot beat the classic shape, design.
And before any one arks up, 13 years of work with the national team has formed my ideas.

PS. I think 28.6 centre section makes more sense.

[e-RICHIE]

also: the industry does this to piss e-richie off. works well i thk..
hey pucci - i hear you do it like a chinaman atmo.

[giordana93]

I thought this was interesting from competitive cyclist, quoting the dudes at Oval--yes the same oval that e-richie has mentioned in previous threads on handlebars, particularly the availability of round alloy units (and I do believe he has a stash of these, no?). anyway, here is the link, followed by the key passage; interesting, you may find:

competive c. review of oval handlebar (http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT_REVIEW&ARTICLE_ID=403&RETURN=Oval%20Concepts%202008%20Oval%20Concepts%20 R701%20Shallow%20Drop%20Handlebar%20page&RETURNLINK=%2Fza%2FCCY%3FPAGE%3DBUY_PRODUCT_STANDA RD%26PRODUCT.ID%3D4123%26CATEGORY.ID%3D298%26MODE% 3D%26TFC%3DTRUE)
this is the key passage:
Here's the second odd thing. Oval takes the position that the 31.8mm handlebar clamp diameter is a fad. Morgan Nicol, founder and president of Oval, blames the limitations of Italian technology in the 1990s for 31.8 and the popularity of Italian fashion for the lasting impact. “(T)hey did not have the butting and swaging capabilities that Taiwan developed. To compete, they made (and then promoted) oversized to build some strength into their 220 gram bars when they had no other option. For mountain bike it makes some sense and it looks good - going 25 kph. For road bikes it is a bad idea. For TT/triathlon bikes it is really ridiculous…. Oversized: Fatter, Heavier, Slower! (Good tag line, huh?)”

For proof, Nicol points to the pro teams he's sponsored. The pros, no matter how big, are requesting 26.0 clamp diameter handlebars. “The teams have their choice and every team we have sponsored have chosen 26.0 - Saeco, Liberty Seguros, Silence-Lotto and Slipstream - even when the brands they represent - Cannondale, BH, Ridley and Felt - spec almost all of their bikes with 31.8. Ivan Quaranta, Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano, Robbie McEwen, and Magnus Backstedt all ride 26.0 bars and love them. They work and there is no reason to change. The difference is fashion vs. performance. The teams know with good quality, triple butted alloy or carbon fiber bars there is no performance reason to choose oversized bars. There IS a penalty however when you add 20% more frontal area and 10% to the weight. This performance factor will grow and grow as more teams realize aerodynamics is more important for road stages than TT stages. Backstedt is 6'4”and weighs over 200lbs and is their cobbled classics specialist and he's going 26.0. That says a lot when the guy is also requesting ultra light parts.

Nicol goes a long way to say what a friend once told us, “31.8 is a solution to a problem I never had.”

btw, mtb bars are still to be had in 25.4, aren't they? surely they are subjected to greater stresses on a day to day basis, I would think

[stevep]

yeah but magnus is a little skinny climber guy...
he's not a big strong sprinter like me...

right?

[e-RICHIE]

I thought this was interesting from competitive cyclist, quoting the dudes at Oval--yes the same oval that e-richie has mentioned in previous threads on handlebars, particularly the availability of round alloy units <cut>

morgan nicol for supreme leader atmo.

[Volant]

hey pucci - i hear you do it like a chinaman atmo.

I hear there are 1.6 or so billion of them, so doin' it like chinaman can't be that bad! ;)

[Fat Robert]

31.8 is foppish

[giordana93]

31.8 is foppish
maybe. I think the problem may be that this "fad" will (has already) become the new standard, whether we want it or not, just like 1 inch headsets died (are dying) for no real good reason. change must be good. progress is inevitably forward, right? How did people even ride on skinny steel-tubed bikes with no index shifting or carbon anything?

[stevep]

I hear there are 1.6 or so billion of them, so doin' it like chinaman can't be that bad! ;)

and more every day.
somebody figured out something.

[e-RICHIE]

and more every day.
somebody figured out something.
it certainly wasn't that loman mear ferrow atmo.
he's done.

[giordana93]

long live Richard Pryor:
"There are two billion chinese people livin' in China. That's how you know someone's doing some serious f'ing... "
hard to believe he's been gone 3 years already

[OperaLover]

How did people even ride on skinny steel-tubed bikes with no index shifting or carbon anything?

Quite nicely thank you, and I still do! (As I'm sure most of us are who are weighing in on this issue.)

I still don't get 1 & 1/8" HS and "hiddensets."

Right now I am decrying the lack of choice in silver threadless stems, with 26.0 clamps that look svelte on a lugged frame with 1'' HS and steerer.

[jtferraro]

Right now I am decrying the lack of choice in silver threadless stems, with 26.0 clamps that look svelte on a lugged frame with 1'' HS and steerer.

+1, especially on an e-richie or zanconato

[jhcakilmer]

I usually agree with many of discussion on the forum, but this is one, that I completely disagree!

I'm a big, strong guy, and I've never tried CF bars, but I can definitely feel the difference between a 26 and an OS alloy bars, within the same quality range. Even within some of the OS bars I can feel a difference.

Currently I'm trying a Reynolds AL bar, and I like the shape....not quite anatomical, and not quite round, but feels good to my hands.

There is an element of personal preference here too, right?

[saab2000]

Different bikes even with the same bars feel different. My Look has a 26.0 stem and bar from Deda. Feels fine. My CIII has now got a Thomson stem and a 3T Rotundo bar replacing exactly what I have on the Look. It feels a bit stiffer and better on the CIII, but I do not feel the need for something stiffer on the Look.

Go figure.

At the end of the day do what my buddy Steve MacGregor told me before the WI state championship in 1989 when I was whining about the cold rain and his Duegi wood soled shoes and clips and straps in his immortal words: "Shut up and race".

[Brian Smith]

name that Indiana builder:
my track bars were Nitto anatomics with an assortment of pieces added to their centers to make them wider, and... 28.6mm

[Fivethumbs]

I read somewhere there was a study done that showed 31.8 bars are superior









for getting people to spend money replacing parts that don't need replacing!!

[stevep]

I read somewhere there was a study done that showed 31.8 bars are superior
!!

see, 5 thumbs agrees.
ditch those mini bars and be a man/woman.
boonen uses them, you should too.

[Fixed]

bro what e-richie and steve p said
cheers

[deechee]

There seems to be a lot of opinion here about aesthetics; but how do the bars compare in the hands? I don't think comparing ourselves to pros is useful; I'm sure a lot of it has to do with sticking with what they're used to.

I was just looking at the Deda Supernaturals for a new bike I just bought (and the "stuff breaks 2.0" & "silver parts" thread) but they're 31.8's. I may as well go towards the "new standard" no? There's no way a 5mm fatter diameter is going to affect my aerodynamics, let alone my out of shape body.

[e-RICHIE]

There's no way a 5mm fatter diameter is going to affect my aerodynamics, let alone my out of shape body.
the diam change is only at the stem area atmo.
the 'rest' of the part is unchangedmo.

[sg8357]

As long as Nitto stays in business, 26.0 and even 25.4 is fine.

Just got a Bailey bar, 22.2, if it's good enough for Reg Harris its good enough for me.

[DarrenCT]

26.0

id rather have the bulge in another placemo

[Keith A]

There seems to be a lot of opinion here about aesthetics; but how do the bars compare in the hands?One aesthetic positive element about the 31.8 bars is how the bar tape ends up being about the same diameter as the bulge -- so where they come together it looks nice IMHO.

As far as how they feel, I only have one bike (soon to have another) with the 31.8mm bars on them. They do feel stiffer than the comparable 26.0, but it is hard to tell whether it is the stem (which in this case is a Time and it's a beast) or the bars themselves. I have yet to try the same bar/stem combination in both 26.0 and 31.8 which would be the best way to compare the two.