canyon Hoverbars - yikes

[spacemen3]

Not bad. They look a lot less stupid than Specialized's Hover riser handlebars.

[rain dogs]

If this was their best concept, I shudder when thinking of the discarded concepts. I don't know if they could have made this less appealing if they tried, and the imagery of a dis-connected handlebar??? Maybe not the best visual language.

"It's great! ... it looks like my bars are completely disconnected from my bike... oh wait, they are! ...grrruuuuanch."

The design would be much more aesthetically pleasing (although maybe just as silly) if they just realized that the stem is totally unneccessary, especially since it only comes in one size

[sandyrs]

Pretty cool that they released a "bikepacking bike" (complete with its own custom frame bag setup) whose a proprietary handlebar/fork both feature no place to mount a light (no round section on the bar top and no crown hole on the fork). I'm generally a fan of Canyon but **** this.

[zross312]

My problem with it is less conceptual (though I think that leaves a lot to be desired too) then executional. It seems like they could have done some legitimately cool stuff with the new front end real estate they've created (which is at a premium nowadays, with computers, lights, etc.). Custom front rack complete with decaleur and accompanying randonneuring-style bag? Integrated water storage and lighting? Hell, a map case? I mean, if you're gonna go crazy, you may as well go CRAZY, and IMO this doesn't offer any differentiations that could provide real value to a buyer. It's neither fish nor fowl (and not easy on the eyes to boot).

Does anyone care to make prediction as to when they announce another gravel bike with a standard cockpit as an "additional" offering, and then quietly euthanize this thing? I'd guess 8 months, tops.

[benb]

I'm finding it hard to believe adding the second bar makes the bar flex MORE.

You look at the marketing copy for that old school "Breakaway Bar" and they claim adding another cross bar makes the bar more stiff. That makes way more sense.

[bicycletricycle]

I don't understand

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

I'm finding it hard to believe adding the second bar makes the bar flex MORE.

The idea is that all the components between the frame and hands flex (stem, handlebars), and the longer the load path, the more flex there is. On a traditional bar, the drops flex more than the bar tops, because the drops have a longer load path (lever arm). On the Hoverbar, when the hands are the bar top, the load path goes from the stem through the front cross bar to the curves, then up the curves, and finally across the tops. A much longer load path than at the bar tops of traditional bars, so 'give' here is a sum of all the deflections along the load path. The thin center section of the tops adds a kind of 'hinge', furthering decrease the stiffness of the tops.

I have no doubt that these bars have more 'give' than standard bars. But how much more? And I've got to believe there's a better way to do it. Why not a flex stem?

Canyon claims that the purpose of the Hoverbar is to maintain stiffness at the drops, for control on steep descents. But let's compare this to MTBs - particularly downhill racing MTBs . Even though the whole front of the bike is suspended through the fork (with 6+" of front travel), there's still plenty of stiffness at the ends of the handlebars to maintain control on steeper and gnarlier drop-offs than this Canyon is likely to see.

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by John H.

I bet if someone like English made a similar design and showed it at NAHBS people would be tripping all over themselves saying how cool it is-

no

[bicycletricycle]

Why connect the bars together on the top then?

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The idea is that all the components between the frame and hands flex (stem, handlebars), and the longer the load path, the more flex there is. On a traditional bar, the drops flex more than the bar tops, because the drops have a longer load path (lever arm). On the Hoverbar, when the hands are the bar top, the load path goes from the stem through the front cross bar to the curves, then up the curves, and finally across the tops. A much longer load path than at the bar tops of traditional bars, so 'give' here is a sum of all the deflections along the load path. The thin center section of the tops adds a kind of 'hinge', furthering decrease the stiffness of the tops.

I have no doubt that these bars have more 'give' than standard bars. But how much more? And I've got to believe there's a better way to do it. Why not a flex stem?

Canyon claims that the purpose of the Hoverbar is to maintain stiffness at the drops, for control on steep descents. But let's compare this to MTBs - particularly downhill racing MTBs . Even though the whole front of the bike is suspended through the fork (with 6+" of front travel), there's still plenty of stiffness at the ends of the handlebars to maintain control on steeper and gnarlier drop-offs than this Canyon is likely to see.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Why connect the bars together on the top then?

I would guess it is so that the bar flexes in unison, rather than having two halves that flex independently. I've ridden the Scott Drop In bars (pictured earlier in this thread), and it was disconcerting when the two sides flexed independently.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The idea is that all the components between the frame and hands flex (stem, handlebars), and the longer the load path, the more flex there is. On a traditional bar, the drops flex more than the bar tops, because the drops have a longer load path (lever arm). On the Hoverbar, when the hands are the bar top, the load path goes from the stem through the front cross bar to the curves, then up the curves, and finally across the tops. A much longer load path than at the bar tops of traditional bars, so 'give' here is a sum of all the deflections along the load path. The thin center section of the tops adds a kind of 'hinge', furthering decrease the stiffness of the tops.

I have no doubt that these bars have more 'give' than standard bars. But how much more? And I've got to believe there's a better way to do it. Why not a flex stem?

Canyon claims that the purpose of the Hoverbar is to maintain stiffness at the drops, for control on steep descents. But let's compare this to MTBs - particularly downhill racing MTBs . Even though the whole front of the bike is suspended through the fork (with 6+" of front travel), there's still plenty of stiffness at the ends of the handlebars to maintain control on steeper and gnarlier drop-offs than this Canyon is likely to see.

That makes sense to me if you're riding on the bar tops on the upper bar I guess, but not necessarily if you're riding on the hoods or in the drops where I'd kind of expect the extra upper bar to actually reduce flex.

I'm not sure I want to be on the tops when the going gets rough and/or I need to make sure I maintain maximum control. Hard to say though, sometimes sitting up feels good on rough terrain, other times it feels harder to control and feels like it transfers more shock to your spine/butt.

[dave thompson]

I found a good use for the bars...

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I would guess it is so that the bar flexes in unison, rather than having two halves that flex independently. I've ridden the Scott Drop In bars (pictured earlier in this thread), and it was disconcerting when the two sides flexed independently.

I guess that makes sense, as much sense as the whole thing makes anyways.

maybe it is super great, I probably wont ever know though.

[zross312]

100% Agree. I'd be willing to bet that the Redshift stem with the elastomer inserts paired with a normal gravel bar would offer more "compliance" (hate that word), while also being lighter, offering more positional and accessory flexibility, and looking a whole lot less goofy.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

...I've got to believe there's a better way to do it. Why not a flex stem?
.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

That makes sense to me if you're riding on the bar tops on the upper bar I guess, but not necessarily if you're riding on the hoods or in the drops where I'd kind of expect the extra upper bar to actually reduce flex.

Well, the upper bar will act a little bit to keep hoods/drops from flexing independently, but the bar won't have any affect if the hoods/drops flex in unison. If the hoods/drops flex up and down in unison, the top bar just goes with them. In other words, the top would act analogously with an anti-sway bar on a car: The anti-sway bar prevents body roll by keeping the right and left suspension from acting independently, but if you drive over a speed bump, the anti-sway bar does nothing to prevent the right & left suspension from moving in unison.

Originally Posted by benb

I'm not sure I want to be on the tops when the going gets rough and/or I need to make sure I maintain maximum control. Hard to say though, sometimes sitting up feels good on rough terrain, other times it feels harder to control and feels like it transfers more shock to your spine/butt.

The only way the Hoverbar makes sense to me is that it reduces the bar flex when sprinting or riding out of the saddle (when you are pulling on the bars). But I agree that in those times you want suspension, you want it for all hand positions.