# Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

It seems like almost all new bikes these days are starting to come stock with 720mm or wider bars. 

Why? 

Then you google bar length and there are tons of people talking about 700-720-750-800mm bars. I just can't even fathom 800mm bars. Are people "mountain biking" down a freeway? 

I had to chop mine down to 675mm just to clear many of the single track tree gaps in my area. 

The common reason seems to be steering control. That is another thing I can't really fathom. Anything wider than your shoulders, and your arms are outside of their power zone anyways. (Think of doing a wide pull up or wide push ups, a lot harder than standard shoulder width.) 

So what is the reason for this strange "ultra wide" handlebar fad that is going on?

(I ride an 18.5" Trek Fuel EX 8 29er. So its not exactly a small bike. Can still turn on a time with 675mm bars. Could probably cut it down to like 400 before steering would even remotely become an issue, lol.)


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Although this trend is probably 5+ years old now, I can't argue with how much easier my old DH bike was to control when I put on the 750mm bars.

But due to the aforementioned tree issue, I will not be expanding this program to my XC bike.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

For me, it's easier to do push ups with my arms stretched beyond my shoulder width. So that theory failed. 

Many people lift weights 50-100lbs with their arms stretched. We're not steering 70lbs of weights, so a wider bar is not a problem to be steered. 

It's not a new "thing", it's the norm now for most bikes.


----------



## tehdually (Oct 17, 2012)

Long top tubes, short stems and wide bars... Its the new geo. I love wide bars and the additional leverage and precision they offer.


----------



## Rogueldr (Jul 30, 2007)

I'm with you. I trim my bars down to about 685 max. I cant understand why bars are getting so wide nowadays either. I also deal with some tight singletrack through trees and I highly doubt an 800mm bar would fit. I guess its all about getting us to believe that what we already have and ride isn't good enough anymore. Just like 29ers, dropper posts and all the new "better" geometry on new bikes. I guess I'm what they would call a "retro-grouch."


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Narrow roadie position bars for mountain biking have been dead for a long time.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

TSpice said:


> It seems like almost all new bikes these days are starting to come stock with 720mm or wider bars.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


I say cut the trees out.

I am measuably faster DH with 760 bars, then with 700mm bars I think my personal sweet spot in somewhere in between those 2 numbers though.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> Narrow roadie position bars for mountain biking have been dead for a long time.


Maybe the trails in my area are just completely against "the norm" then, as if I had anything wider than 720mm, I would slam my hands on trees every 200ft.

I actually had to replace my grips (when I still had 720 bars) because the outer 1-1.5" of the rubber was completely ripped off from grinding on trees.

A 750mm bar would easily clothesline me. Its like a dog walking through a doorway with a 5' stick. *thud*


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Love my wide bars and won't go back. Better steering control, and better leverage when climbing. Out of all the 'fads' out there, wide bars and dropper posts are the two things that definitely made a believer out out of me.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Anything over 720mm, and this is what it feels like...


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Love narrow bars personally.

But as has been mentioned "wide" bars have been a thing for 15+ years now.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

My bars are 720 and they're perfect. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

I guess it is just a "by area" type thing.

First time riding the local trails here (just moved here), I stuck out like a sore thumb with my 720mm bars. 

Again, maybe it is just how the trails here are set up and its basically required to have a narrow setup whereas everyone else doesn't have as narrow of single track?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

TSpice said:


> I guess it is just a "by area" type thing.
> 
> First time riding the local trails here (just moved here), I stuck out like a sore thumb with my 720mm bars.
> 
> Again, maybe it is just how the trails here are set up and its basically required to have a narrow setup whereas everyone else doesn't have as narrow of single track?


chicken and the egg arguement. If the local riders were riding wider bars why would they make trails that were narrow around bar height?

I personally can stand true choke point or handlebar catchers. Never had I heard anyone ever say, man it was tons of fun getting my handlebars around though trees!


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

Where I live in California we have less frequent, larger diameter trees instead of lots of narrow trees. There are still lots of trees, bushes and rocks along the trail that will cause trouble if you aren't aware of them. I went from 680 to 725 to 750 and I don't clip stuff any more frequently than I used to. Once you get used to the wider bars clipping stuff is a non issue.


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

I really like the 720 width bars but there are several spots I have to watch out for narrow spots. It's been kind of a thing where I ride because almost all of our trails are through forest areas. We had a few trails where people felt compelled to remove trees in narrow areas. At the one place I ride with a lot of narrow spots people have started breaking trail around those trees. Personally I just slow down when I know I'm coming to a narrow spot. Trail builders need to adjust to the fact that people are riding wider bars and if people are riding around something, its a clear example of a problem spot.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Rogueldr said:


> I'm with you. I trim my bars down to about 685 max. I cant understand why bars are getting so wide nowadays either. I also deal with some tight singletrack through trees and I highly doubt an 800mm bar would fit. I guess its all about getting us to believe that what we already have and ride isn't good enough anymore. Just like 29ers, dropper posts and all the new "better" geometry on new bikes. I guess I'm what they would call a "retro-grouch."


Innovation is beautiful. If some don't like it, then by all means, get a 1990 bike and ride that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Like every mountain bike innovation in the last 30 years there are always people who resist it and want to stay with old fashioned, out of date technology. I'm 57 and have always experimented with my bike setup and am more than willing to try new things. That's why I'm riding a Knolly Warden instead of my old 89 Team Stumpjumper. Being a retro grouch can be cool but will definitely hold back your riding.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I have two mountain bikes and they have different width bars. On my HT 29er the limit for me is 720. I tried a 740 but just did not like it. In the "neutral" position when climbing or cruising on flat terrain, my wrists feel like they are at too much of an angle and it becomes uncomfortable after a while. Going into the attack position out of the saddle...the 720 feels plenty stable...at least for the terrain I take the HT on.

I have a 26 FS bike that I use a 750mm bar on. I use it for local shuttle and ski resort rides. I don't spend much time pedaling and spend most of the time out of the saddle with the elbows out.

I remember using some 560mm Easton carbon bars back in ~2008 on a 26in HT. I just didn't know any better...most people were running ~600mm bars back then.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

777-785mm bars/55-60mm stems has been lovely everywhere I've ridden it in Colorado


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

I saw a guy yesterday on an MTB with the narrowest bars I've ever seen. Somewhere around 700mm is good for me.

As long as your bars are wide enough to sit on, you are good to go


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

I've been MTBing for 30 years and have experimented with all kind of bar widths and I have always come back to shoulder width. I have no idea what that is in mm and don't really care. I found that much wider than that I feel like I'm driving a truck and the tight squeezes get too tight and anything much narrower than that I loose too much leverage.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

zrm said:


> I've been MTBing for 30 years and have experimented with all kind of bar widths and I have always come back to shoulder width. I have no idea what that is in mm and don't really care. I found that much wider than that I feel like I'm driving a truck and the tight squeezes get too tight and anything much narrower than that I loose too much leverage.


And the beauty of business is that they'll sell many shapes and sizes. You can buy a 650mm bar and another can buy an 800mm. We all have different preferences.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I believe the 'new thing' is to tell people how innovative the new thing is, and make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with you. So if you want to fit in, I'd get some new bars and make fun of all the idiots who are still running less than 700mm. :thumbsup:


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

zrm said:


> I've been MTBing for 30 years and have experimented with all kind of bar widths and I have always come back to shoulder width. I have no idea what that is in mm and don't really care. I found that much wider than that I feel like I'm driving a truck and the tight squeezes get too tight and anything much narrower than that I loose too much leverage.


I don't understand this rationalization. If I ran a bar that was shoulder width, I'd be riding 18 inch bars. That's just not right.


----------



## Golfster (Apr 9, 2015)

When I was bike shopping, the bike I ended up purchasing felt just right on the demo and subsequent rides thereafter. When I decided to upgrade my handlebars and stem, I opted for the same handlebar width and stem length as stock to maintain the original fit. I know little about trends but like the natural feeling fit. It turns out the bars are 730mm.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

voghan said:


> ...We had a few trails where people felt compelled to remove trees in narrow areas. At the one place I ride with a lot of narrow spots people have started breaking trail around those trees...


I'm in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. I have an 800mm wide bar on my XC bike. Every one of my usual biking buddies has a bar 760mm or wider. Short stem, wide bar - it's made me waaaaaaay faster on the downs. There may be one or two places on some trails where I can't squeeze through but just like voghan's experience, there are always ride-arounds for those places (and usually a red diamond or some other marker attached to the trees), because so many people are running the same size bars now. Slamming trees is a non-issue in my neck of the woods.

Wide bars (and short stems) have been the "thing" for at least 3 years, and I would say closer to 5. So not new by anyone's standards.


----------



## Barman1 (Jan 8, 2014)

I started this season with an EC90 500mm flat carbon bar just for fun and it was tough negotiating anything rough and tight. Also put a lot of pressure on the outside of my palms. Blistered right up. It was a failed experiment.
Went with a 685mm I had laying around and it was a major improvement although I did clip a few obstacles now and then.
Picked up an EC70 720mm and yeah, I know I'll clip some more trees but it seems like the sweet spot.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I kinda wish I still had my 26 HT with the 560mm Easton bar. See what the difference is since I've been riding 710, now 720mm bars for the past three years.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Wide bars allow for more mechanical leverage at the grip end, providing for the use of less muscle force to keep the front wheel from deflecting in fast rough terrain. 

a wide bar with a long stem is very awkward, so stems got shorter to balance. now days, bikes steer more like motorcycles, which is a good thing. it's more stable.

my bars went from 590, to 660, to 700, to 720 to 770 and my stem went from 110 to 90 to 70 and I've never been happier.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

TSpice said:


> ...
> Then you google bar length and there are tons of people talking about 700-720-750-800mm bars. I just can't even fathom 800mm bars. Are people "mountain biking" down a freeway?


Different strokes for different folks.
Out west, yeah. Alot of riding is 'freeway'.










TSpice said:


> The common reason seems to be steering control. That is another thing I can't really fathom. Anything wider than your shoulders, and your arms are outside of their power zone anyways. (Think of doing a wide pull up or wide push ups, a lot harder than standard shoulder width.)


That's a poor analogy, its more analogous to wrestling over a broomstick, in which case, the wider grip is superior. it's not about shoulders. it's about elbow bend. at around 90* it's pretty mechanically advantageous. This is why wide bars are popular.


----------



## Chadio (Jun 26, 2015)

Hmmm... modern day mountain bikers must have
- ginormous leg muscles (to go soooo fast that you generate ridiculous gyro forces) 
- spindly arm muscles (because it takes such huge amounts of force to influence the direction of the front wheel, hence the long leverage bars )

wwwwwWWWWHHHEEEeeeeee


----------



## jugdish (Apr 1, 2004)

voghan said:


> Trail builders need to adjust to the fact that people are riding wider bars and if people are riding around something, its a clear example of a problem spot.


 Lol. That's laugh out loud funny. 
BTW, are grammar dead?


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

To me, wide bars aren't about leverage to keep the wheel pointed where you want or a better base for doing pushups. The main thing it does is increase the size of what I call the area of balance, that is how much I can move around on the bike and/or have the bike move around under me while still being able to hold onto the bike and keep it rubber side down.

It gives you more room to move around on the bike and provides a more stable base for your body position when the bike is getting bounced all over the place. It also makes it easier to torque the bike back underneath your center of gravity when it gets bounced sideways or off line by various trail obstacles. Also makes it easier to hold onto the bike and stay upright on botched landings.


----------



## Mr5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

I must be the poster child for: "if it works just fine for you no worries". Both of my bikes have 580mm bars on 100mm stems. Maybe I am deceiving myself and, in fact, am not having fun. Just an illusion. Me thinks not.

With that said, I do see the plus side of wider bars with a short stem. Just don't see the need, personally. Being an XC kinda guy and all.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Chadio said:


> Hmmm... modern day mountain bikers must have
> - ginormous leg muscles (to go soooo fast that you generate ridiculous gyro forces)
> - spindly arm muscles (because it takes such huge amounts of force to influence the direction of the front wheel, hence the long leverage bars )
> 
> wwwwwWWWWHHHEEEeeeeee


Huh?

I think it's more about not having super twitchy narrow bars.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

TSpice said:


> It seems like almost all new bikes these days are starting to come stock with 720mm or wider bars.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


First off, but I'm of the mind ride whatever works for you, maybe try new things out, but who cares what anyone else is riding.

So I can only tell you why I like 750mm bars. I started at 685mm. They felt fine. My next bike came with 780mm bars. After riding them for a few months, and clipping some trees, I decided that while I liked bigger 780 was too big. Finally settled at 750.

What sold me was the extra modulation they had in steering (less twitchy) since larger movements were needed to make the same steering input. I also found longer bars were less fatigue inducing as they provide more leverage to keep the wheel on track when rolling over the baby heads and rocks that make up significant portions of the trails I ride.

Those two things helped out enormously as I was (and still am) fairly new to MTB. Basically took the edge off rougher, more technical riding.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Mr5150 said:


> I must be the poster child for: "if it works just fine for you no worries". Both of my bikes have 580mm bars on 100mm stems. Maybe I am deceiving myself and, in fact, am not having fun. Just an illusion. Me thinks not.
> 
> With that said, I do see the plus side of wider bars with a short stem. Just don't see the need, personally. Being an XC kinda guy and all.


let take those statement and show how silly you sound.

I do see the plus side for a narrow bar and long stem for an XC guy but I just do not see the need.

the thing is MTBing for most people is about fun, for some its about speed. For some going faster is more fun. Guess what the short stem, wide bars long front center is generally more fun and faster. To each his own, but just writing it off because you do not see the need is silly.

I do not see the need to MTB
I do not see the need for 2 brakes
I do not see the need for a chain.
I do not see the need for any suspension


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I ride narrow Maine singletrack 720's hit trees. I run 590's and have no problem with them whatsoever. 

720 oh yeah well I can steer quicker and that is true, but that doesn't mean I go faster on it. it just feels different. I can steer 590 flats just as well as 720. If all I rode was more open singletrack without 10-20 tree squeezes per ride then I might use 720's all the time but ...my singletrack selections and tree-squeezins is so much nicer than 'just having 720's'


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Chadio said:


> Hmmm... modern day mountain bikers must have
> - ginormous leg muscles (to go soooo fast that you generate ridiculous gyro forces)
> - spindly arm muscles (because it takes such huge amounts of force to influence the direction of the front wheel, hence the long leverage bars )
> 
> wwwwwWWWWHHHEEEeeeeee


Actually, your understanding is completely off.

Bounce through a rock garden with narrow bars/long stem and wide bars/short stem and see which one gives you more control (and, thus, speed).


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I've never had to worry much about bar clearance west of the Mississippi, wide bars rule in the Rocky Mountain chunk.


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

jugdish said:


> Lol. That's laugh out loud funny.
> BTW, are grammar dead?


Congratulations on being that guy.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never had to worry much about bar clearance west of the Mississippi, wide bars rule in the Rocky Mountain chunk.


I think a lot of people fail to understand this when these handlebar discussions come up. I've ridden on both sides of that great big river, and things differ. Not everywhere to the east is super tight, but there's a fair bit of it. Especially in the little urban parks that don't do prescribed burning or other brush control to keep things open.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never had to worry much about bar clearance west of the Mississippi, wide bars rule in the Rocky Mountain chunk.


x2.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

zrm said:


> I've been MTBing for 30 years and have experimented with all kind of bar widths and I have always come back to shoulder width.


shoulder width is very narrow so I suspect you're wrong. the average man has shoulders 17-18 inches wide, which is well under 500mm. the narrowest MTB bars I've seen, even on late 90s XC race bikes, was around 550mm. the widest shoulders I've seen are around 22 inches, 558mm, on really huge framed guys over 6'5".

so, no. your bars are probably at least 620 mm even if exceptionally narrow. there would be no room for your controls if you had bars <500mm.

FWIW, I ride 720mm bars. They limit my speed through some tree sections of a few trails. Almost any 'moments' or actual crashes on XC type trails are from hitting a bar end on a tree at speed.

There is one place where I have stopped and checked clearance, and it's well under 1" from both bar ends, and it's going over roots between the 2 trees. I go through there about 3 mph. My brother in law rides 750mm bars and has to stop to get through, and >780mm would mechanically interfere.


----------



## Lou Z. Ryder (Sep 9, 2014)

*Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?*

Shouldn't your height, and therefore your wingspan, determine -- at least to some degree -- your bar length? It seems to me that if you're 6'2" you'll probably like a width that would be weird for someone who's 5'8", like me; 670 feels pretty wide to me, but would feel much narrower to someone who's 6'2"; I'd guess 670 for me and 720 for him would put us in about the same position. Yes? No?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

As far as fitting the correct width to your body, you go with whatever supports a solid athletic stance / attack position:










While I appreciate that some people ride exceptionally tight trails, I always take these threads with a grain of salt. I've seen some example photos of "super tight trails" with whole inches to either side of the handlebars. A lot of it depends on your level of comfort with getting through gaps. IME, if your hands are at the ends of your bar, your brain knows where they are and you'll make it through.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

this is not complicated. if you buy a new bike, it will come with "wide" bars. if you want them narrower, take hacksaw to them. if someone else rides with narrow bars, let them. if you like narrow bars and someone else has wide ones, go mind your own business.


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> this is not complicated. if you buy a new bike, it will come with "wide" bars. if you want them narrower, take hacksaw to them. if someone else rides with narrow bars, let them. if you like narrow bars and someone else has wide ones, go mind your own business.


The thing about a MTB forum is that it is a great place to discuss what and why about mountain biking, which is what is going on here. This thread may educated people on why bars are getting so wide nowadays, which is great.


----------



## Rogueldr (Jul 30, 2007)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> Innovation is beautiful. If some don't like it, then by all means, get a 1990 bike and ride that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I do ride a '97 an '07 and an '11 bike. You keep spending your money on the "newest and greatest" things that'll be obsolete by next year. Then you and the rest of the people can go spend your money on the new "newest and better" stuff that comes out year after year.


----------



## Rogueldr (Jul 30, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Being a retro grouch can be cool but will definitely hold back your riding.


I beg to differ.


----------



## Chadio (Jun 26, 2015)

06HokieMTB said:


> Actually, your understanding is completely off.
> 
> Bounce through a rock garden with narrow bars/long stem and wide bars/short stem and see which one gives you more control (and, thus, speed).


My comment was 'in jest', hence the 'wwwWWWHHHHEEEEeee'


----------



## Chadio (Jun 26, 2015)

aerius said:


> To me, wide bars aren't about leverage to keep the wheel pointed where you want or a better base for doing pushups. The main thing it does is increase the size of what I call the area of balance, that is how much I can move around on the bike and/or have the bike move around under me while still being able to hold onto the bike and keep it rubber side down.
> 
> It gives you more room to move around on the bike and provides a more stable base for your body position when the bike is getting bounced all over the place. It also makes it easier to torque the bike back underneath your center of gravity when it gets bounced sideways or off line by various trail obstacles. Also makes it easier to hold onto the bike and stay upright on botched landings.


Sensible explanation - good


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Grammar cops unite. *

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/wide-bars-becoming-new-thing-982892.html

Is it just me or is this title jacked up?

*Shouldn't it say:* Are wide bars becoming the "new thing"? :thumbsup:

*Instead of :* Is wide bars becoming the new "thing". :nono:


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/wide-bars-becoming-new-thing-982892.html
> 
> Is it just me or is this title jacked up?
> 
> ...


^^This would be a great point if 700mm+ bars weren't ancient already. 
At least gauging time by the current crop of MTBR's techno weenies... :lol:


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

I think head angle has something to do with how wide your bar needs to be, at least from my experience. After adding a longer fork to my bike, and slackening the HA by 1.5º, I was forced to buy a wider bar to counteract wheel flop. Went from 690mm to 740mm. It made the wheel flop go away. Bonus was it relieved some extra shoulder and neck stress, that I would get on long rides. 

We have a lot of tight trails too. You just have to use the swim move to get between tight trees. I got used to it pretty quick.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Rogueldr said:


> I do ride a '97 an '07 and an '11 bike. You keep spending your money on the "newest and greatest" things that'll be obsolete by next year. Then you and the rest of the sheep can go spend your money on the new "newest and better" stuff that comes out year after year.


That's an odd thing to say about a handlebar.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

evasive said:


> That's an odd thing to say about a handlebar.


not to mention, if he believes that, why did he buy a 2011 bike when he already had a 2007? 97->07 was massive, 07->11 considerably less so.

or maybe he didn't see much difference and he's still pissed about spending the money for the 2011, now 4 years later... :lol:


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Remember: people are euipment freaks, and we're genetically wired to like new things. Not every "innovation" is actually an innovation. People often make the blind assumption that every change is in a forward, upward direction—and that technology evolves ever upward.

The reality is that it often goes in circles, and is driven as much by fads and trends as anything else.

Remember when the first drivetrains with triples came out? Everyone thought "NIRVANA! What an INNOVATION!" Now people can't dump 2 of the 3 chainrings fast enough, LOL.

All that being said, I'd like to try wider bars.  (Hey, I admit it—I like new things!)

And I rode plenty of trails in the Mid-Atlantic region that had names like "Knucklebuster." There is NO WAY you'd get down many of those trails with wide bars. (You'd be stopping to angle your bars to get them between the trees.)

Out west? Yeah, scads of space out here. 

Scott


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

I view it kinda like the wheelsize debate:

1) Pick your stance (narrow, medium, or wide bars)
2) Be a d!ck about it


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

SWriverstone said:


> Not every "innovation" is actually an innovation.


Exactly. Wider bars are hardly innovative, or new, people have been experimenting with them since the beginning. IME wider bars are superior to narrower ones in chunky terrain, what other people prefer to ride is of no concern to me.

Calling someone out or berating them because they like wide bars, or narrow ones is ridiculous, and to quote Mushmouth (Fat Albert) LC....... low class man.


----------



## boomslang64 (Feb 18, 2015)

I started on 700mm bars. I knew pretty quickly that they were too narrow. I'm on a 760mm bar now, and considering going up to 800mm. I ride mostly in dense German forest, and have no problem with clearance between trees. Well, I have whacked the bars on a couple of trees, but I don't think a few CM less bar width would have stopped that.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Rogueldr said:


> I beg to differ.


If I attempted the trail we rode last night with my 89 Stumpy I would either be injured or have sore feet from walking today. Also a trip to the dentist would be in order to replace some fillings. My modern Warden is 5 times safer than the 89 Stumpjumper.


----------



## Rogueldr (Jul 30, 2007)

ColinL said:


> not to mention, if he believes that, why did he buy a 2011 bike when he already had a 2007? 97->07 was massive, 07->11 considerably less so.
> 
> or maybe he didn't see much difference and he's still pissed about spending the money for the 2011, now 4 years later... :lol:


Since you guys are so interested in my spending habits, I bought the '11 because I wanted a SS and my '07 is a FS.


----------



## Rogueldr (Jul 30, 2007)

Zowie said:


> I believe the 'new thing' is to tell people how innovative the new thing is, and make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with you. So if you want to fit in, I'd get some new bars and make fun of all the idiots who are still running less than 700mm. :thumbsup:


This


----------



## Psycho1 (Aug 26, 2014)

I'm 6'4". My bike originally came with a 740mm bar. I didn't see any reason to go wider. I measured my natural grip width with my elbows bent on the attack position and it measured 780mm. I wanted to sit up a little bit to get my site bones to hit the seat better and help my sore lower back on longer rides.. So i bought a bar with 1" rise. Just happened to be 800mm. I planed on trying it for 1 ride then cutting them down. Im now on a dozen rides and actually love them.. I think size, bike terrain, and riding style all have a part. For me, my size, on my trails, with a hard tail. This is what works for me today. If you haven't tried it, then you don't really know. I have used really narrow bars on my previous bike, and it didn't work very well for me. So before I have rules or opinions with what I think is the "best" I should at least give it a try. At the end of the ride, what works best for me, Probably will be completely differant for someone else..


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
I believe the 'new thing' is to tell people how innovative the new thing is, and make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with you. So if you want to fit in, I'd get some new bars and make fun of all the idiots who are still running less than 700mm. 


Rogueldr said:


> This


That's hilarious, considering you're calling people "sheep" for liking something different than you....


----------



## timmyt (Apr 1, 2013)

It's all subjective and boils down to personal preference. I bought 760 bars a few years ago expecting to trim them down, I'm now on 800. It's a subject as tedious as wheel size


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never had to worry much about bar clearance west of the Mississippi,


I suppose I'm a long way west of the Mississippi, then...

I remember coming home after year abroad and realizing how much I'd missed being surrounded by trees. I can think of a couple of places along the local trails where a 750mm bar is a tight squeeze. But those trails were never "built", they appeared where people wanted to go. Most seem to have gone for 700 mm or more. But not all. Personal choice, whatever puts a smile on your face, etc.etc.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

DH bikes were using 165mm hub-spacing not too long ago. Another new standard will settle this, betcha'!

If creating a entirely different wheel to frame interface at all makes right your views on Handlebar width - please stop posting.

And riding. 
Both, preferably.


----------



## staffsvw (May 31, 2015)

rode with 620 bars for a few years... the new bike has 750 bars and I wouldn't go any shorter now


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Haint said:


> DH bikes were using 165mm hub-spacing not too long ago. Another new standard will settle this, betcha'!
> 
> If creating a entirely different wheel to frame interface at all makes right your views on Handlebar width - please stop posting.
> 
> ...


I'm working on a new 38mm stem interface, does that count?


----------



## NZPeterG (Mar 31, 2008)

I have made a number of custom Handlebars over 900.
But have not seen any rider run them for more than a few weeks
?

Kiwi Pete from the road


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

I believe that there really is a sweet spot for each person when it comes to control. Sure, some people put 800mm bars on their xc bike that only rides smooth trails because its a fashion statement. But wider bars up to a certain point do have great advantages. Currently riding 780 bars, but I think I am going to cut them down to 740-750. Just going with 10mm increments until I find a good fit.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Zowie said:


> I'm working on a new 38mm stem interface, does that count?


You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

Wider bars are better for control...they just are. I was amazed when I saw a picture on here a few weeks ago of some Pro XC race from the front, because the bars were so wide...not one rider in the pic had anything close to shoulder width bars. If even they have adpoted them, who put a premium on low weight and are less obsessed with a perfect handling bike, but much more focused on a perfect position to generate power, then it makes sense for everyone. How about Enduro riders who ride really rough trails....nothing less than 750 over there anymore. The whole "I ride really narrow trails", I once believed, but now am convinced is a myth. When I first went a little bit wider, from 660 super narrow to 720, I hit my hands a lot. Then it stopped...when I went to 750, I rarely hit them. I ride "super narrow" trails in the Mid-Atlantic, and it is not an issue at all once you intuitively know where your hands are and learn to weave every once in a while when needed. I think even now at 750 on a trail bike I could be well served to go a little bit wider and still improve handling and control. I am convinced that everyone would be well served by using fairly wide bars and a short stem. I know some have been cutting them short for decades and won't change..so good for them, have at it...it is just not the most effective thing for handling and control. Comfort because of familiarity...sure. 

As to the push-up analogy, it is a great analogy and good way to get to where you should be width wise, but no one generates the most power at shoulder width...the OP must have never done a bench press in his life to say that's the most powerful position. Not even close...


----------



## nzl62 (Jul 28, 2007)

710 5 years ago. 780 on my nomad 780 on dh bike. Never hit a tree a tree. I reckon 760 would be perfect on Nomad but can't bring my self to trim the beautiful Chromag carbon bars! Can't ride 685 as some are posting here


----------



## nzl62 (Jul 28, 2007)

Also - I wonder where shoulder width bars concept came from? Road right? Why is this even close to relevant for a mtb. Couple of nice online pieces from GMB about bar width. Basically - do a comfortabe press-up. Where you place hands for best control and stability is you bar width.. simple


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

nzl62 said:


> Also - I wonder where shoulder width bars concept came from? Road right? Why is this even close to relevant for a mtb. Couple of nice online pieces from GMB about bar width. Basically - do a comfortabe press-up. Where you place hands for best control and stability is you bar width.. simple


??? Wider handlebar comes from the constant emerging segment of DH.
First DH races were on Ski Slopes. ... during Winter. On XC Bikes. In the late 80's. 
DH was not seen as a potential discipline due to no product/sponsor visibility at races and races too short for spectators.


----------



## kazlx (Jun 13, 2005)

SWriverstone said:


> Remember: people are euipment freaks, and we're genetically wired to like new things. Not every "innovation" is actually an innovation. People often make the blind assumption that every change is in a forward, upward direction-and that technology evolves ever upward.
> 
> The reality is that it often goes in circles, and is driven as much by fads and trends as anything else.
> 
> ...


But you also leave out the other pertinent information like the fact that 42T rear cassettes exist, along with much more efficient suspension designs and fork/shock valving. There will always be fads, but things will always move towards efficiency. Why carry an extra front ring or two when most of the ratios are in duplicate or triplicate? 1x setups are becoming the norm because you can get everything you need in a more efficient package. Bars are similar in the sense that they fit better with more current geometries and allow better control over the bike.

I run 50mm stems on my trail bikes with wider 760+ bars. Not knocking anyone that wants to run narrower, but from day 1 of me picking up riding, I've felt instantly more comfortable and in control with short stems and wide bars. It's definitely not a new trend and most seem to hover around high 700s with a few options going higher and lower.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

Where have you been? This isn't a new trend.

You can still get narrow bars if that is your preference.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

06HokieMTB said:


> Actually, your understanding is completely off.
> 
> Bounce through a rock garden with narrow bars/long stem and wide bars/short stem and see which one gives you more control (and, thus, speed).


This!

Narrow/Long Stem focuses the control into a rotational scenario.  The pivot (head set) is between your forearms or elbows. The long stem gives the wheel forces a lot of leverage at the bar. The long stem describes a circle with a large diameter. Wheel forces will see your hands moving as a pair on the bar around perimeter of that circle. That's a tough force to resist. The push pull of your biceps and shoulders are neutralized. You're forced to pivot your hands as a pair around your spine.

With wide bars/short stem, the pivot point is between your wrists and the leverage is short, the diameter of the circle is small, and your points of contact are at about 9:30 and 2:30. You address the forces more directly with your biceps in a push/pull fashion. Pivoting around your spine just would put a small side load into the headset.


----------



## Mr. Lynch (Jun 11, 2010)

We have a lot of tight, twisty trails thru thick wooded areas around hear and even my 5'4" wife prefers 740mm bars over narrower options. She said the control and stability is a big step up over the 680 bars that were originally on her bike. I didnt force it on her either. She had to ride my bike one night and she loved the feel of it. Turned out the wider bars and short stem combo just felt better all around.


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

The thing about this whole arguement about wide vs narrow bars is hilarious to me when you throw bar ends into the discussion. 

Noone uses them anymore because "hits and wraps around stuff" yet they have no issues using bars 140+ mm longer than the old "standard" that used to have bar ends. And mysteriously itself not a problem! 

Ride what you like. Or keep being a following lemming, the bike industry loves you guys. 

Took somebody 9 pages into the thread for someone to mention that the greater control is caused by the shorter stems rotational distance at the fulcrum point vs longer bar.

The rest of you guys don't know wtf you're talking about, and merely parrot head the popular opinion.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

steveohio said:


> The thing about this whole arguement about wide vs narrow bars is hilarious to me when you throw bar ends into the discussion.
> 
> Noone uses them anymore because "hits and wraps around stuff" yet they have no issues using bars 140+ mm longer than the old "standard" that used to have bar ends. And mysteriously itself not a problem!
> 
> ...


I could not find a popular opinion. Link?


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

Can't find one, I need help finding a post like that...

Look for the posts declaring XXX being better than YYY and everyone else who doesn't agree obviously is a bad, slow rider with old, dated technology. 

These facts are backed up by such empirical evidence such as, "something, something, race..." and I've used everything and XXX was do much better for me (omit reasons) so it HAS to be better for everyone. 

I'll try and find a post like that around here....

Might take awhile, I'll do it after I ride, whatever the heck I like regardless of opinions, majority or not.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

steveohio said:


> Can't find one, I need help finding a post like that...
> 
> Look for the posts declaring XXX being better than YYY and everyone else who doesn't agree obviously is a bad, slow rider with old, dated technology.
> 
> ...


This 'thingieness' is in fact not. 10 years ago one of the magazines took a picture of Steve Peat and Greg Minnaar comparing wider handlebars on their race bikes, Minnaar just off his Honda Bike. The caption was something like 'narrow bars on the down-trend'.

The evolution of bike capabilities and their increasing range of use is the engine of creation here. May as well buy up Billboard space for the human condition.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I've seen lots of posts from people who have tried wider bars and liked them better but none denigrating those who choose to run narrow. You retro grouches are so touchy!

If one more person calls me a lemming or a sheep I'm going into launch a neg-rep rampage.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Look at shoes for doing stuff in rugged outdoor places...
• trail running shoes
• lightweight hiking boots
• heavyweight hiking boots
• hunting boots
• canyoneering boots
• mountaineering boots
• Chacos & Tevas
...they're all radically different, but all designed for being outdoors, on or off-trail. Mountain bikes (and their parts) are no different.


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

Haint said:


> This 'thingieness' is in fact not. 10 years ago one of the magazines took a picture of Steve Peat and Greg Minnaar comparing wider handlebars on their race bikes, Minnaar just off his Honda Bike. The caption was something like 'narrow bars on the down-trend'.
> 
> The evolution of bike capabilities and their increasing range of use is the engine of creation here. May as well buy up Billboard space for the human condition.


Right, good reasoning, a magazine picture caption, from 10 years ago is your trump card to declare match?

You stand no chance to win any arguement. Don't try and start one.
The changing of bikes and their use does evolve them, but it in no way what-so-ever is the end all, be all of bike setup.

Things like terrain, rider, skill level, geometry, and even rider state of mind all play a part. There is no XXX is better than YYY absolutely.

I ride the same local trails for years now. So does everyone else here. Im no different than 99% of people here in these regards. 
What bike was top of the line 5 years ago, is different than it is now. What was considered optimal for my specific riding shouldn't change, and if it does, why?

If its the same rider on the same trails and the same of riding, then what's "best" shouldn't change.

On any specific set of conditions, there will be an optimal setup. Those won't change over time, sorry.

They also vary for each rider, and each set of circumstances. To say XXX is always better than YYY, ignoring the prior facts, is ignorance at it's best.

At some point everyone has thier bikes dialed in how best fits them. Not everyone's will be the same. Ride what YOU like, and what works best for you. Not what anyone else tells you to. To do otherwise, makes you a lemming by definition.

If that offends you, too bad.


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

It's not a matter of retro grouching btw, it's called rider preference. The so called "grouches" really don't care what you use. We have no positive or negative opinion, what we do care about is being told that XXX is better than YYY now, because (lack of reasons). Usually that group (I don't join enough conversations on here to be in any group) is basically marginalized and told, well better cuz' new, expletive, expletive.

I just thought that it's a very valid point to bring bar ends into this discussion, because the #1 reason they aren't used, is also they #1 reason people don't like wider bars. I just found the conflict of interest curious. 
Does anyone have an opinion on why that is? Other than fad? (No, not everyone runs risers, thanks)

Also if wider bars are always better, then why aren't we all running 1000mm, what about 1200? Where's the cutoff point? And why is it that the cutoff point?

See, multiple factors at work.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

steveohio said:


> Right, good reasoning, a magazine picture caption, from 10 years ago is your trump card to declare match?
> 
> You stand no chance to win any arguement. Don't try and start one.
> The changing of bikes and their use does evolve them, but it in no way what-so-ever is the end all, be all of bike setup.
> ...


Except, you know, advancing knowledge of applied engineering, materials, and manufacturing change what is possible to do making solutions available that couldn't be done before.

P.S.

No one should be marginalized for riding what they like, and I don't think anyone in this thread said people shouldn't ride narrower bars. They did state why they liked wider ones. That isn't an attack. You called them lemmings and sheep.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

steveohio said:


> If its the same rider on the same trails and the same of riding, then what's "best" shouldn't change.
> 
> On any specific set of conditions, there will be an optimal setup. Those won't change over time, sorry.


Now that thar"s funny^

You still rocking a Mag 21 & Farmer John's?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

steveohio said:


> ...trump card...


Uhhh - no.

Becoming 'a thing' began long ago. Look it up, it's the internet.


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

Any minute change to solve any variable in a positive way, can negatively effect another variable. 

Not all change is purely linearly upward. I do acknowledge and concede that yes, as technology "in general" does provide forward progress, all circumstances are met with an optimal solution. 

Not all solutions are the same for different sets of circumstances.
If it was, why does anyone here own more than 1 bike? The logic in itself is contradictory.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

steveohio said:


> Any minute change to solve any variable in a positive way, can negatively effect another variable.
> 
> Not all change is purely linearly upward. I do acknowledge and concede that yes, as technology "in general" does provide forward progress, all circumstances are met with an optimal solution.
> 
> ...


Because Handlebars.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Haint said:


> You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.


I can't make a stem out of coconut?

New tech, brah--it's what drives this industry.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Zowie said:


> I can't make a stem out of coconut?
> 
> New tech, brah--it's what drives this industry.


I mean, you could _now_ of course. While on page 3? Hells no!!

:devil:


----------



## steveohio (Dec 6, 2013)

IPunchCholla said:


> Except, you know, advancing knowledge of applied engineering, materials, and manufacturing change what is possible to do making solutions available that couldn't be done before.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> No one should be marginalized for riding what they like, and I don't think anyone in this thread said people shouldn't ride narrower bars. They did state why they liked wider ones. That isn't an attack. You called them lemmings and sheep.


I never called anyone specifically anything, nor attacked anyone. I spoke on the reasoning why people conclude that "wider is better" on the condition on it being the defacto standard currently. If you've run them and like them more, great, they might be better for you. They might be better for 95%, but to say that that absolutely wider is better without factual evidence or going purely based off of majority preference would in fact, make you a lemming. It's just the definition, and again, is not directed towards anyone. The fact it took 9 pages to mention rotation length should give you a good idea that this is a thread about preference and majority opinion on a "bike standard" let's keep it there. Let's not devolve it into an arguement about opinions.

But seriously, I really would like to know how wider bars relate to bar ends, because I almost see a double standard there in relation to the snagging arguement. Disagree?


----------



## Chadio (Jun 26, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> ....
> 
> You still rocking a Mag 21 & Farmer John's?


I resemble that remark


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

steveohio said:


> I never called anyone specifically anything, nor attacked anyone. I spoke on the reasoning why people conclude that "wider is better" on the condition on it being the defacto standard currently. If you've run them and like them more, great, they might be better for you. They might be better for 95%, but to say that that absolutely wider is better without factual evidence or going purely based off of majority preference would in fact, make you a lemming. It's just the definition, and again, is not directed towards anyone. The fact it took 9 pages to mention rotation length should give you a good idea that this is a thread about preference and majority opinion on a "bike standard" let's keep it there. Let's not devolve it into an arguement about opinions.
> 
> But seriously, I really would like to know how wider bars relate to bar ends, because I almost see a double standard there in relation to the snagging arguement. Disagree?


"Rotation length" is negligible and has been debunked more than once on these boards. With CAD drawings.

You raised the issue of catching bars versus catching bar ends. Since you complained that it took 9 pages for anyone to raise stem length effect on rotation, presumably you read all the posts and saw my post in which I mentioned that your brain unconsciously knows where your hands are. That's why I can ride a gap 1/2" wider than my bar width without slowing down, as long as I'm holding my bars at the ends. That doesn't work with another 1"+ of width outside your hands.

I got my first modern width bar in 2006. It was a Niner bar, 720mm-ish (I don't remember for sure). Not DH-driven, but rather XC, SS oriented. I thought it looked silly and kept thinking I'd trim it, but it rode so well. I got a 760mm bar in 2009 and a 780mm bar in 2011. This is not a new phenomenon. Tapered head tubes are newer.


----------



## VQuick (May 14, 2013)

600 mm is too wide. It's just a fad like the 750s and 800s used only by lemmings. I have 420 mm aero drop bars on my MTB and you wouldn't believe the tree gaps I can get through now. Clearly better than 600s. Narrow aero is the future of MTBing. Also, I added bar ends for better control and leverage and that cool retro look. My n=1 experience should be applied to everyone else, regardless of rider characteristics, riding style, bike, or trail type. /thread


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

DJ bike 640mm - just fine, easy to spin
enduro bike 750mm, wanna wider

Brosince topic, bike should be comfortable and hit specific purpose


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

wow, folks getting so worked up about ~100mm of Aluminium or Carbon

should probably ride more


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

"are" wide bars....."are"...but I digress....

I run 720s on my XC HT. Love it. Have clipped a few trees since running wider bars so the issue is real that they can be too wide for tighter single track. Just feel so much more comfy on them.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

cjsb said:


> You can still get narrow bars if that is your preference.


That's not really true unless you employ the hacksaw.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Shayne said:


> That's not really true unless you employ the hacksaw.


Lots of people resort to the hacksaw anyway, to get the wide bar exactly right.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Haymarket said:


> from 660 super narrow to 720, I hit my hands a lot. Then it stopped...when I went to 750, I rarely hit them. I ride "super narrow" trails in the Mid-Atlantic, and it is not an issue at all once you intuitively know where your hands are and learn to weave every once in a while when needed.


660 is wide. 590 is narrow.

your trails are not narrow if you can weave through them with 700 or bigger. not like where I ride...perspective. 590's barely fit

I do like my 720's on the fatbike but hate half the trails I ride I must dab on the chokepoints and work my way between rocks or trees. house sized rocks tree sized trees trail in middle. 590's no prob


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Crazy kids these days, I jest can't wrap my head around these dad-blame newfangled handlebars, they're so dog gone wide I could cut one in 4 chunks and each one would still be bigger than what we used back in my day. Matter of fact we were lucky to have a handlebar at all, my dad had to use his seatpost for one. Seatpost or handlebar he used to always say, can't have both........................ now, what were we talking about again? Get the hell off my lawn you whippersnappers!


----------



## BobbyWilliams (Aug 3, 2004)

I used to ride with a set of 22's with a 4" stem. They were pretty narrow, but what I was used to. All the wide bar short stem craze got me going though so when I saw a set of 26 inchers I picked those up along with a 3" stem. I liked those better and I really didn't hit any trees with them. It wasn't until I bought a new bike that came with a 30 and a 2" stem that I started clipping trees and started to learn about "Swimming" your bars through. Those old 26" bars seem a bit narrow now. I keep thinking maybe I will cut my 30's down to 29 or so, but I keep hesitating because you can never put bar length back on.

Why you care I don't know, but since I'm not riding right now I might as well discuss it on the internet I guess...


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

My first bike had 625's or something like that. After riding on 760's, going back to the really narrow feels like this:


----------



## Adodero (Jul 16, 2009)

My bike had 710mm bars & 70mm stem standard, which I rode with for about 6 months. I'm a n00b, so take this FWIW...

I didn't realize how much it was impacting my comfort level until I sat on a bike with 760mm bars and 50mm stem, which was immensely more comfortable. I felt immediately at home on the bike and realized quickly that my hands were being pinched inwards on the narrower bars. I don't have massive shoulders, but they aren't exactly narrow either. 

I switched to 780mm bars and 50mm, it's been a really good change. I ride a Bronson and mostly XC type trails, with a lot of quick ups and downs.

Some folks told me it would impact climbing negatively, but I found it to have a positive impact. The front wheel is easier to lift over obstacles and I can adjust my body weight when I want it planted on the ground. I'm not sure I'd want to spend 3 hours climbing on a gravel road in the position it sits me in, but for the up and downs we have here, it works really well. 

For descending, I feel like it's a lot more comfortable and puts me immediately into a better position, allowing me to blow down the trail with more confidence than I would have before. I also feel a lot more stable and in control.

I haven't had any issues with trees here and it does get narrow in spots. I guess we don't have trees so close together that adding ~1 1/4 in to either side would make that big of a difference. Chances are, I slowed down or stopped for anything that narrow anyway. 

It works for me, really well. YMMV.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Crazy kids these days, I jest can't wrap my head around these dad-blame newfangled handlebars, they're so dog gone wide I could cut one in 4 chunks and each one would still be bigger than what we used back in my day. Matter of fact we were lucky to have a handlebar at all, my dad had to use his seatpost for one. Seatpost or handlebar he used to always say, can't have both........................ now, what were we talking about again? Get the hell off my lawn you whippersnappers!


we used to press an onion into the steerer such was the style at the time


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I used to ride with 585 bars and 130 mm stem on my 26" HT. Built up in 2003 and was great. I since moved to 660mm bars and 100 mm stem. Off the bat I noticed 2 things. 1 low speed turning was harder since I had to move my arms more to initiate the turn. However I was able to learn this extra turn in a few rides, 2) rocky downhills and even rocky up hills were a little better because the front tire moved less when boucing off the rocks. Basically with wider bars came extra leverage to counteract the rocks trying to knock the front wheel out of position. Even so 660 still feel pretty wide. I have no desire to go wider.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

I saw tha advantages of going wide whan i changed my 620mm that came on my bike with 700mm. Later I switched to 750, but only because i wanted a lower rise, my intention was to cut them to 700-720. 

Glad I gave them a proper ride first, the difference was clear. Better control, improved cornering. Only had to play with the angle, as the 9 deg backsweep changes a lot when you rotate them up or down.

Bars are Funn Full On, recommend them, great shape, affordable and plenty of colours too.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I can't believe someone brought up bar ends again. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone on the trail with em. For me besides the very real impaling aspect, they take up valuable handle bar real estate. My bars are already 770mm wide with my pinkies at the ends of the grips, so I don't need another 30mm of width or the ends interfering with my hand position. And yes I have used bar ends back in the 90s, as well as all lengths of bar and stem lengths. I don't express an opinion about something I haven't tried. Gott go, there are some GD kids on the lawn...


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> I can't believe someone brought up bar ends again. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone on the trail with em...


I've been on the look out for bar widths lately. I saw a pair of bar ends attached to a narrow-ish bar last night at West Bragg Creek. The bike looked to be at least 10 years old.

Off to Fernie for the weekend. I'll be in observation mode on the BC side of the border.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Meh, main reason I brought this whole thing up must just be specific to the trails in my area.

My bars started off at 720mm. 

I literally got off my bike, walked it up to the tree gap, and the outside 1-2" on both bars were blocked by trees. Essentially the tree gap was around 680mm.

Oh, maybe a storm knocked the tree down right? No, this 680-720mm range tree gap is EVERYWHERE in the 5 different 12mile+ park systems in my area. So naturally, if you run 700+ bars? You cannot ride the trails. You have to get off and wiggle your bike through the gap, then get back on. 

I just don't understand it because if the trends (maybe old trends as it appears, I am new to the sport, sorry) are leaning towards wider bars, why are all the trails so narrow here. I mean these aren't ghost towns of trails either, they see hundreds of people every day. Just everyone here runs narrow set ups. Yet the stores and online retailers obviously all push the 720mm+ stuff. 

I couldn't even buy anything smaller than 720 here without ordering. Just hack sawed it.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Re this ^^^...

What area are you in? I would feel like I was on another planet or in a time warp if most of the riders on the trail were riding bikes with old school narrow bars. 

As for the trails in your area, likely most (all?) of them were not built in the last 5 to 10 years. Also, it's likely at least some were not built as biking trails in the first place. In my area, there is a huge difference between the biking trails built within the last 5 years by bikers (Merlin Loop, Ridgeback, etc.) and the old eroded horse trails that are now predominately used by bikers. But even the old ones usually have ride arounds where there is a tree narrowness issue.

I suppose it is a regional thing too, and depends on tree growth and density. I'm rocking an 800mm bar on my go-to bike. So far I have ridden extensively in the Calgary area, and have also ridden in Whistler, Golden, Revelstoke and Fernie, and have yet to have any problems. Sure, there is the odd tree combo where I have to slow right down to a crawl and do a "swim motion" (as someone on here referred to it as). But by and large, there are no issues - almost always there are ride arounds for any narrow areas, presumably because the large majority of riders in these areas are also using wide bars. And those areas are usually marked with red diamonds on the trees.

For me, wide bars and a short stem work best. In fact, that combo is likely one of the top 3 evolutionary changes that has dramatically improved my riding. But each of us is different and what works for me, may not work for you or anyone else.

The title and premise of your post suggests that wide bars is/are a new "thing". I suppose that may be a regional thing too, although I highly doubt it, given that the bikes being manufactured don't have regional tweaks to their componentry (as far as I know).


----------



## Over the Hills (Jun 4, 2015)

On my 15 year old mtb with narrow bars I wiped out about 9 out of 10 rides. With my new one I virtually never wipe out. I think that the wider bars are the main reason for this. As far as tree gaps on our fav singletracks... some of those trees should just get cut down.


----------



## Bakudan (May 19, 2011)

"Stop liking what I don't like!"

- Mountain bikers


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yes, our trails are built my mountain bikers. There is 1 spot where my bars just fit. Lots of trees have bar scars from people learning where the end of there bars are.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> ...Lots of trees have bar scars from people learning where the end of there bars are.


Same in my area. I instinctively watch for that and can spot the scars from far away. There are no narrow spots anywhere without scars.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Hokuto No Ben said:


> "Stop liking what I don't like!"
> 
> - Mountain bikers


This is a lot more succinct than the standard form of 'This is what I run and it's awesome because etc. etc. examples, etc., but you know, you go ahead and ride whatever you want on... _your_ trails because... etc. etc.'

You could save a lot of storage space with those kind of quotes...


----------



## VQuick (May 14, 2013)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Same in my area. I instinctively watch for that and can spot the scars from far away. There are no narrow spots anywhere without scars.


In my experience the trees are smaller and closer together in the Midwest and East, compared to out West. So there are many more natural narrow points on trails there. I think some trail builders think that going through narrow spots is a fun challenge, which it can be once in a while, but not every 10 feet. Here in Oregon there are very few trails where my 750 mm bars cause any problem, and the extra control far outweighs the slight inconvenience. Like anything, you need to have a bike that is suitable for where you ride, so if local trail builders/riders don't want to widen the trails to allow newer bikes then there is no argument: use narrow bars.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Ride whatever feels comfortable.

Started off with 740's, didn't know any different - so they were fine for several months. 
Then I found I was riding with pinkys off ends of grips. Need a wider bar I thought (little did I know that they were the latest/greatest, and they'll be obsolete next season!?) 
So, bought 785's expecting I'd trim it down to 760 after a few rides - ended up at 775 and lovin it. 
New steed has 780 it feels comfortable also.

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

I ride super tight trails with my super narrow bars! I am better rider than you!!! So there! If you have wide bars you must not be able to ride trails!


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

mtnbkrmike said:


> As for the trails in your area, likely most (all?) of them were not built in the last 5 to 10 years. Also, it's likely at least some were not built as biking trails in the first place. In my area, there is a huge difference between the biking trails built within the last 5 years by bikers (Merlin Loop, Ridgeback, etc.) and the old eroded horse trails that are now predominately used by bikers. But even the old ones usually have ride arounds where there is a tree narrowness issue.


They are pretty old. I think the other problem potentially is the trail stewards and nature preservationists primarily stick to the easier fast and flowy trails. A lot of the more technical "black diamond" trails is usually where I run into issues with stupidly narrow gaps. Especially ill-placed stupidly narrow gaps. (ie creek crossing, then a very sharp 45+ deg blitz climb, then a root, and a hard right turn through a 690mm tree gap. So your tires are wet, you have no speed going up that steep of a climb, have to power over a root, then wiggle through a very narrow gap.)

Should go out there after dark with a hacksaw and make some firewood.

I agree with most people when they say, "I don't know anyone who loves narrow tree gaps. Just squeaking by thinking I am going to break my fingers is where its at!"

So....can't be many who would get upset with a little....modification...of the trees.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

TSpice said:


> Should go out there after dark with a hacksaw and make some firewood.


There isn't anything right about this sentence. 
Wrong on a few levels, in fact...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Yeah, definitely a chain saw, it would take all night with a hacksaw.

I joke! But seriously, any trail _that_ tight could probably use a little maintenance. Through proper channels of course.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

TSpice said:


> They are pretty old. I think the other problem potentially is the trail stewards and nature preservationists primarily stick to the easier fast and flowy trails. A lot of the more technical "black diamond" trails is usually where I run into issues with stupidly narrow gaps. Especially ill-placed stupidly narrow gaps. (ie creek crossing, then a very sharp 45+ deg blitz climb, then a root, and a hard right turn through a 690mm tree gap. So your tires are wet, you have no speed going up that steep of a climb, have to power over a root, then wiggle through a very narrow gap.)
> 
> Should go out there after dark with a hacksaw and make some firewood.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying that your trail would/would not be better with less trees, but - Some people.... maybe think that extra challenge is fun and completely rideable. Just because it's out of your skill set, doesn't make it right to go changing other peoples' trail. You say it's an old trail, with a lot of use. So, other people obviously ride it, or they would've been gone already.

Don't go making changes without the proper authorization, since you say there is one. If they agree with you, then go for it. Please.... from someone who likes that extra challenge, and gets sick of all the difficulty being dumbed down on the trails.


----------



## VQuick (May 14, 2013)

Zowie said:


> There isn't anything right about this sentence.
> Wrong on a few levels, in fact...


Yeah, agree with hacksaw being the wrong choice. Also, you might hurt yourself if you do it after dark with a chainsaw. And don't forget firewood takes a year to season properly before you can use it.

j/k, I am a tree hugger, though I don't cry over trees cut down to maintain a trail. And d365 makes a good point: your least favorite part of a trail might be someone else's most favorite part.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Locally, in the last couple of years the USFS has cut down every beetle-killed tree that has the potential to fall on a trail. Part safety, part fuel reduction. A number of trails have gone from dense forest to open hillside.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

d365 said:


> I'm not saying that your trail would/would not be better with less trees, but - Some people.... maybe think that extra challenge is fun and completely rideable. Just because it's out of your skill set, doesn't make it right to go changing other peoples' trail. You say it's an old trail, with a lot of use. So, other people obviously ride it, or they would've been gone already.
> 
> Don't go making changes without the proper authorization, since you say there is one. If they agree with you, then go for it. Please.... from someone who likes that extra challenge, and gets sick of all the difficulty being dumbed down on the trails.


I am pretty sure no one has ever been thrilled because they cleared tons of trees with their handlebars.

I am so lucky that my 760 bars are narrow for where I ride, because its almost never an issue.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I am pretty sure no one has ever been thrilled because they cleared tons of trees with their handlebars.


Uh, no, obviously not.

But the point is that we ride MTBs over, around and through technical obstacles. Trees that are close together are part of those obstacles. Trees that are very far apart are just scenery. Scenery is wonderful - that's an important part of the MTB experience - but it narrow* tree gaps are challenging.

*Of course this is subjective. Some folks like it when they have 1" from either bar end. Some think 6" clearance is too tight when they are going >15 mph. And on it goes..


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

moefosho said:


> I ride super tight trails with my super narrow bars! I am better rider than you!!! So there! If you have wide bars you must not be able to ride trails!


Oooh! Look, if I lean a little to the left my handle bars move left! Oooh! If I lean a little to the right, my handlebars move to the right!

Holy Sock Down The Y-Fronts, Batman! I Think I've Got It!!

:narb:

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

ColinL said:


> Uh, no, obviously not.
> 
> But the point is that we ride MTBs over, around and through technical obstacles. Trees that are close together are part of those obstacles. Trees that are very far apart are just scenery. Scenery is wonderful - that's an important part of the MTB experience - but it narrow* tree gaps are challenging.
> 
> *Of course this is subjective. Some folks like it when they have 1" from either bar end. Some think 6" clearance is too tight when they are going >15 mph. And on it goes..


the thing is to me MTB is about fun. I get no joy when I literally can not fit down a trail. I am usually ok with tight spaces though I just slow down.

I would get less joy though if my trails were so tight that I had to run really narrow bars. Like I said lucky for me i was late adopter around these parts and most everything is cut really wide.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

targnik said:


> Ride whatever feels comfortable.


^This


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Some places I have read about breathing on climbs being one reason to use wider bar, I believe that was idea with bar ends and I guess nobody uses bar ends anymore as they are not in fashion now. 

I have steel handlebar with 25.4mm clamp diameter, I don't know it's width, but I'm quite sure it is something 650 to 680. 

If my shoulder width is around 540mm which is around 21 inch, I think that something bit wider than my shoulder width would be appropriate, but not sure by how much.

Sometimes I find to take grip on quite close to stem, sometimes at end of bar putting palm towards 'hole' of handle bar, sometimes I'm considering bar ends to get more positions as I ride several hours and center of my palm starts to sting usually after an hour in same position.

720mm bar might be worth to try, alloy or carbon, from those carbon might be easier on my hands as I ride quite lot of crushed stone surfaces and that vibration is not too nice with steel bar, might be worse with alloy bar.

Two things in discussions are however quite foreign to me, one being grips that don't stay on place and other being this wider bar providing more leverage and easier steering. 
I don't really squeeze my handle bar, I barely touch it, I steer mostly by shifting weight and I use hands mostly to stabilize handle bar movement. If anything I give little push to handlebar, but for me sounds like guys are using handlebar to force bike to turn or go certain direction?

For example double track where I descend over 30mph, thick growth so can't see much of those rocks on path, I have thumb and index finger forming O around handlebar, rest of fingers hover above brake levers and I mostly control bike by legs and saddle, arms are very loose and relaxed and I let bike move while I remain smooth and not rocking up and down like my bike is doing.

Maybe I ride completely differently from rest as there is no any DH tracks or single tracks / trails as such.

Often I ride without hands on tarmac roads, around 17mph, going around potholes and such.

I don't really find need for hairspray on grips or wide handle bar, but it might be because I ride differently, to understand different viewpoints and preferences it would be needed to understand way people are riding, apples for some, oranges for some other, I guess?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Haint said:


> You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.


----------



## Clymbo (Oct 17, 2010)

Haymarket said:


> Wider bars are better for control...they just are. I was amazed when I saw a picture on here a few weeks ago of some Pro XC race from the front, because the bars were so wide...


Would like to see this photo. Nino Schurter is running a 680mm bar and most World Cup XC riders are in the 660-690 range.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

Clymbo said:


> Would like to see this photo. Nino Schurter is running a 680mm bar and most World Cup XC riders are in the 660-690 range.


I think you're looking at old numbers...you can look and see they are over that on average...even many women are running 700+ now. The one dude who posts on here who talks about his wife being a XC pro racer at high level said a few months ago that even she was now running 720s...there are definitely outliers, and Pro XC racers are not normal riders riding normal trails.....that is why it is telling that even they have gone wider because opthe advantage is undeniable, and that is telling. Enduro riders, more analogous to how most trail riders ride....ALL have wide bars, every one.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mr5150 said:


> I must be the poster child for: "if it works just fine for you no worries". Both of my bikes have 580mm bars on 100mm stems. Maybe I am deceiving myself and, in fact, am not having fun. Just an illusion. Me thinks not.
> 
> With that said, I do see the plus side of wider bars with a short stem. Just don't see the need, personally. Being an XC kinda guy and all.


I haven't seen anyone in a pro/open XC race with "narrow" bars like those in years. Most are on 700mm+.

Courses are getting more technical. Wide bars help me go fast in the rough.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Clymbo said:


> Would like to see this photo. Nino Schurter is running a 680mm bar and most World Cup XC riders are in the 660-690 range.


Howard Grotts. New U.S. Pro XC champ. #3 in the U23 WC.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Somewhere in the world this mythical "super tight XC" must exist, based on all the posts. I've ridden in a lot of places and never found it, even on the places that were supposed to be "tight". We got lots of "tight" stuff here in AK with the tight undergrowth and rain forests (lots of rooty areas with high density of trees), but 780 still works just fine. Your brain "knows" where your hands are. If you ride with 2" of bar sticking out on each side, you WILL tag bars on things. If your hands are at the ends of the bars; highly unlikely, regardless of the length.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Somewhere in the world this mythical "super tight XC" must exist, based on all the posts. I've ridden in a lot of places and never found it, even on the places that were supposed to be "tight". We got lots of "tight" stuff here in AK with the tight undergrowth and rain forests (lots of rooty areas with high density of trees), but 780 still works just fine. Your brain "knows" where your hands are. If you ride with 2" of bar sticking out on each side, you WILL tag bars on things. If your hands are at the ends of the bars; highly unlikely, regardless of the length.


Ha, a couple of hard whacks to the knuckles taught me where my hands are and I'm not the only one in my group.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Clymbo said:


> Would like to see this photo. Nino Schurter is running a 680mm bar and most World Cup XC riders are in the 660-690 range.


I don't see the bar specs too often on pro bike features. I did see something on Marco Fontana and from what I remember its sub 700. Dan McConell runs a 685 from a recent Trek video. It think Christoph Sauser runs a 710 bar.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

There are two situations where even my current bar (probably 680mm, need to measure) has been bit wide.

1) those red sticks next to road that help snow plowing, when I ride at side of road and two big rigs come, one from front, one from back, my handle bar is too wide as it hits those red sticks, but then again any 

2) when getting bike from garage, there is smaller door in garage door and it is very narrow door, handle bar is wider than door, if I put mirror to end of handle bar it becomes quite a challenge to use that door.

I'm considering wider bar because I could fit bar ends then without sacrificing my current grip width, so I'm not against wider bars, even I don't think I would gain much of that better control which many seem to get from those. 

I would like to see some scientific test results of different bar widths and some real measured data to back up claims wider bar making one faster, there might be truth in it, but I really would like to see some solid data instead of emotions screaming from bunkers, it is not very constructive, imo.


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

steveohio said:


> Also if wider bars are always better, then why aren't we all running 1000mm, what about 1200? Where's the cutoff point? And why is it that the cutoff point?


Lol! I know right. When does it all stop? Five feet wide bars? Same as wheel size and suspension. When does it all end? 127.5" wheels and ten feet of suspension? This is what we have to worry about. When will it ever stop? This is such a powerful argument. My entire life is a slippery slope and I'm so scared right now.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Haint said:


> You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.





DIRTJUNKIE said:


>


The web is full of Monty Python videos from where that quote comes. Does this thread look that bad? 6 pages of handlebar width. ... or their narrowness. 
My handlebars are coming off this afternoon, they're dumb. Converse just redid the Chuck, should fit right ontop my fork crown when I need to stop. 'Things' are taking our jerbs and are crushing our smokes. Experimenting days are over.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

I have 540mm and 630mm bars it seems, that is quite a difference to what seems to be 'current' norm. 

Today I was riding my hands on top of shifter clamps fingers straight and no gripping at all, even thumbs rest on top of bar, I tend to do that when riding on road, that is something like 1/3rd of bar length from end of bar.

It is hard to tell what kind of different experience wider bar would give for my specific riding and buying one just to test seems bit too much of jump to unknown. 

I figured out that longer bar would allow some sort of additional bars for longer distance road trips as there is more space to mount them, of course that is not much to do with mountain biking, I just use single bike for everything.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

The wide bar (+shorter stem) doesn't make you faster, but what it does is make the bike more stable at speed over rough terrain. What that stability does is give you more confidence. With more confidence...can result in faster riding. 

I got a used 2010 Pivot Mach 5 in 2012. It came with a 90mm stem and a 670mm bar. I never really felt good descending on it. Always felt sketchy to me. In 2013, I bought a 29er HT (to replace my 26 HT)...stopped riding the Mach 5. Few months down the line...I switched out the stem for a 50mm and the bar for a 740 and that changed the way the bikes descends without really changing the way the bike climbs. Decided to try a 780 and 35mm stem...didn't like it. Finally settled on a 750 bar and the 50mm stem. I found that I was riding with much more confidence and with that...a lot faster.

My 29er came with a 75mm stem and 700mm bar. Went to a 685 bar and 70mm stem. Then 710 bar and 80mm stem. Then 66mm stem. Recently decided to go to 740, didn't like it and cut it back down to 720. I'm sticking with that. 

I did a lot of experimenting and in the end, I finally found what works for me. The "wide" bar naysayers need to try it out before claiming they they are a fad.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

A lot of people haven't tried many options and they should.


----------



## nzl62 (Jul 28, 2007)

For me its a simple control thing. If the frame is the correct size shorter stem offers more control than longer on descents - I don't believe there is any agreement with that any more Bars need to compliment stem - think triangle so narrow bars on a short stem would offer poor control and bike fit for most and long stem wide bars - same deal.
I saw someone post sometime back about turning an headsets etc but most people lean the bike to corner so I don't understand the argument.
For me 685 and a 70/90mm stem - if appropriate to the bike size handles very differently and in a worse way than 740-780 on 50mm stem. I have swapped many riders cockpits over the years and they have all been faster with wider shorter combo.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Definition of rough stuff might differ between posters, for example I don't experience much more rougher stuff than crushed stone on fire road, I would also rather spend hundreds toward fork upgrade before wider bar, but I'm of course always up to test when I face the opportunity. 

What I got thinking is about that leaning into corners thing, isn't it so that wider bar requires more hand movement and could it be so that it allows rider to be more sloppier with steering inputs, turning bit too much is not that too much than with shorter bar?

Longer bar is relaxing steering inputs, slowing the steering? Could there be some reasons for different experiences, others being more precise with steering inputs and others being bit more inaccurate with them?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 19, 2006)

Its not theory. It's biology and physics. Hands put down wider than shoulder length and holding things wider than shoulder length IS outside of the maximum power zone. Just because you don't know something, doesn't make it theory, it just makes it something you haven't learned yet.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> Its not theory. It's biology and physics. Hands put down wider than shoulder length and holding things wider than shoulder length IS outside of the maximum power zone. Just because you don't know something, doesn't make it theory, it just makes it something you haven't learned yet.


Strength of your arms is usually a bell curve.

The strength of your arms in a wide stance (elbows at a 90 degree angle) is strongest when your elbows are at 90. However, between straight and that 90, they are significantly weaker than a narrow stance. So if you take a hard hit, usually your arms would struggle because it is entering that 90 degree mark faster than you can slow down.

The inverse is a slightly wider than shoulder width "standard" stance. Its power is from straight to about 80% bent. Literally the inverse of the wide stance. So you can take harder hits with less strength, but if you take a monster hit, and it pushes past your 80% mark, you will struggle.

So essentially if you ride with a wider arm stance, you should be down in your 90-120 degree elbow bend the whole time. (Which is what you would see racers doing for an aggressive stance.) If you ride wider stance and you stand tall with your arms straighter? You are really losing the purpose of it.

Likewise if you ride narrow and get down in that aggressive stance with your elbows significantly bent, your arms won't be as strong as if they were more extended (arms still slightly bent so you don't lock your elbows.)

Everyone has their opinion, myself included.

Ride what you like so it keeps you in control and on the trails!


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

nzl62 said:


> For me its a simple control thing. If the frame is the correct size shorter stem offers more control than longer on descents - I don't believe there is any agreement with that any more Bars need to compliment stem - think triangle so narrow bars on a short stem would offer poor control and bike fit for most and long stem wide bars - same deal.
> I saw someone post sometime back about turning an headsets etc but most people lean the bike to corner so I don't understand the argument.
> For me 685 and a 70/90mm stem - if appropriate to the bike size handles very differently and in a worse way than 740-780 on 50mm stem. I have swapped many riders cockpits over the years and they have all been faster with wider shorter combo.


Are you also saying that you climb faster with a short stem and wide bars? Time spent climbing vs descending is usually around 2:1, so I don't see how something that gives you an advantage going down but slower going up could make you faster overall.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

grumpy old biker said:


> Definition of rough stuff might differ between posters, for example I don't experience much more rougher stuff than crushed stone on fire road, I would also rather spend hundreds toward fork upgrade before wider bar, but I'm of course always up to test when I face the opportunity.
> 
> What I got thinking is about that leaning into corners thing, isn't it so that wider bar requires more hand movement and could it be so that it allows rider to be more sloppier with steering inputs, turning bit too much is not that too much than with shorter bar?
> 
> Longer bar is relaxing steering inputs, slowing the steering? Could there be some reasons for different experiences, others being more precise with steering inputs and others being bit more inaccurate with them?





[email protected] said:


> Its not theory. It's biology and physics. Hands put down wider than shoulder length and holding things wider than shoulder length IS outside of the maximum power zone. Just because you don't know something, doesn't make it theory, it just makes it something you haven't learned yet.


I think these two are what it's about, especially the first post. I've tried wider and just don't like it. I'm 6'1" with broad shoulders and I like the stock bars on my Trance SX.

I don't need more power or control, I have enough strength and coordination with my somewhat narrow bars by today's standards. It's the same with powerful brakes, I've never understood people grabbing a handful of brake and accidentally going over the bars but you hear it quite often in brake discussions. It seems your reaction speed and coordination should be quicker and better than that.

For some, I don't think maximizing power or "control" over the bars is a big deal when there's no deficiency in the first place. If I were the typical 150lb mountain biker maybe I would be more concerned with wider bars. Come to think of it, my friend that I'm always riding with loves wider bars and he's pretty weak. This isn't an insult to anyone but as the poster above said, "It's biology and physics" lol. Some want/need more leverage.

Just because of this discussion I'm going to try wide bars one more time and give it a couple months. But first I'm getting rid of this Fox 34 that has so much friction it feels like it's locked out over small bumps yet dives to the end of it's travel under braking, for a 2016 model which will give me so much more control/safety/speed than a wider bar.

To be fair, the one advantage I saw with the wider bar was when climbing in the saddle where the front is very light. I didn't wander off line as much because small arm movements translated to even smaller steering inputs. That was usually after being off the bike for a couple months, the wandering problem which was a rider and not a bike problem went away after a few climbs but the wide bars did lessen the effect.

I don't know why people get so pissed and personal about it. It's personal preference. Some need it, some want it, and some don't. I'm not against wide bars at all, I believe some and maybe the majority are better off with them, but they offer no advantage for me and since that's the case I enjoy a little extra clearance on the trails.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

TSpice said:


> Strength of your arms is usually a bell curve.
> 
> The strength of your arms in a wide stance (elbows at a 90 degree angle) is strongest when your elbows are at 90. However, between straight and that 90, they are significantly weaker than a narrow stance. So if you take a hard hit, usually your arms would struggle because it is entering that 90 degree mark faster than you can slow down.
> 
> ...


I do not disagree with most of what you said, only where maximum strength occurs. If you think of it like bench press, some people have more strength when the bar is fully down on the chest. Some have more strength from halfway to all the way up. Chest vs triceps. I always knew if I could get the weight off my chest I could make the lift because my arms were slightly stronger than my chest in that lift. I also think that if more people did weight training, bar width would be more of a comfort issue than anything else for us amateurs.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

BuickGN said:


> bar width would be more of a comfort issue


Isn't that what it is?


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

It is to me...


----------



## bad andy (Feb 21, 2006)

I, like big bars and I cannot lie...


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

i like wide bars, ymmv


----------



## Stormwalker (Feb 23, 2011)

My bar width has gradually been creeping wider over the years. They're pretty narrow on my 93 Giant ATX (which I still have!) and felt fine riding throughout the 90s. I had a Mariachi that had 700mm wide bars and I remember thinking those were pretty wide. I guess what put me on the path to ever wider bars was getting into fatbikes and winter riding a few years ago, I eventually put a 720 bar on the Pugs back then and it felt great.

I now run Race Face Atlas bars on both my fatbike and 29er, both cut to 765mm, seems like a great length. I wouldn't want any less on the fatbike, running Lou in a Bluto I imagine the extra leverage/length helps in those slow ungroomed snow slogs. Also seemed like it had a lot more control for a DH snow event I went to, compared to my friends' bikes I switched around with, everyone else was using narrower bars.


----------



## j0hn (May 27, 2011)

bad andy said:


> I, like big bars and I cannot lie...


Haha! This ^


----------



## chrisbennet (Aug 16, 2008)

I used to have a problem with my hand going numb. When I mentioned it to a bike store employee he asked how wide my bars were. He mentioned that when they are too wide they can cause your hands to be positioned so they rest on a nerve(s) causing the numbness.

I cut an inch off either end and no more numbness. YMMV.


----------



## rox (Aug 30, 2008)

a lot of people are saying it subject which is totally true but I think thats only telling half the story. bars do not exist in a vacuum, they complement the rest of your bike and your riding style. ie a downhill bike isnt going to have the same bar width as an xc race hardtail. in my stable I have an xc hardtail with 710s, an xc/trail fs with 740s and a 6 inch trail bike at 765. so lets just make sure we are comparing like to like.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I would set up any mountain bike the same way. As short a stem as I can get away with given the reach of the frame and a 770mm bar. I would love a light carbon HT set up this way. My stem and bar experiments have shown no impact on climbing and benifits in every other aspect of mountain biking. Why would I handicap myself with a long stem and narrow bar just because the bike is a different style? As long as you have room and your weight ends up where it's needed. I have never heard a decent explanation of why longer stems and narrower bars are better for XC.


----------



## VQuick (May 14, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> I would set up any mountain bike the same way. As short a stem as I can get away with given the reach of the frame and a 770mm bar. I would love a light carbon HT set up this way. My stem and bar experiments have shown no impact on climbing and benifits in every other aspect of mountain biking. Why would I handicap myself with a long stem and narrow bar just because the bike is a different style? As long as you have room and your weight ends up where it's needed. I have never heard a decent explanation of why longer stems and narrower bars are better for XC.


It's a less aerodynamic position, for one. On a road bike handlebars account for 30% of the drag (more than the frame because of their frontal area). On a road bike aerodynamics matters more than anything else above 12 MPH. I suspect this speed is higher for a mountain bike, but the fact remains on a fast XC course I wouldn't want wide bars. XC courses are less technical in general so the extra leverage is less important too.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

I didn't believe in the whole wide bar thing for a while, and still don't believe in the super-wide (approaching 800mm) bars, but..

After finally deciding that maybe I didn't know everything, I discovered that it adds more stability by slowing down steering and gives you more leverage by lengthening the lever arm to the stem. 

I rode a bike with narrower bars on Saturday, and what did it do? It wandered all over the place (or at least more than I'm used to) because the steering was unnecessarily quick and felt less stable at high speeds. Motorcycles turn by leaning over on the tire, but for some reason, bicycles have been designed for years as if the major turning force should be generated turning the front tire. Why?


----------



## KR65 (Sep 8, 2013)

It seems many threads on MTBR devolve into...

My way is better! Your way sucks!

My equipment is better! Your equipment sucks!

My d**k is larger than yours!

Really, who cares about bar length. Just go effin' ride!

Geez...

:madman:


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

A little less aero as your arms are stuck out a bit. It is not all about leverage though. Combined with a short stem the downiness of you bike increases which also helps a lot.


----------



## Wildbird99 (Dec 7, 2014)

Thanks for the discussion. This is a topic I have been interested in lately. I love to mess with ergonomics and various mods, but... Around these here parts, tight trees are often designed into the trails to keep motorized vehicles (dirt bikes, ATVs) off the trails. One of the trails near my house has one spot that I can't squeeze through on my 29er, but the narrower bars on my fatbike are no problem. That makes me less likely to invest in wider bars. My 26er is my stem/bars test vehicle, so maybe I'll give them a shot on that bike, though. If I understand the advanced physics and biomechanics discussions herein, that might make it less twitchy, which it definitely was on some spots today.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

KR65 said:


> It seems many threads on MTBR devolve into...
> 
> My way is better! Your way sucks!
> 
> ...


If you think it's about dick swinging, you're completely lost and should stay away from technical discussions.


----------



## popcorn_skollie (May 20, 2014)

It's the enduro bandwagon and its effects on mountain biking in general. 
The 'wider bar short stem' trend found in trail bikes today was adopted from downhill bikes because enduro/am riding also tend to focus largely on descents. 
For most riders who share a love of gravity type riding. There is no arguing the benefits of forward geometry when coupled with a wider bar and shorter stem. Its a performance benefit more than it is comfort one. A wider bar can only be appreciated leaning your bike at speeds so you can rail that berm or when bombing though a rock garden. These are more than likely the same guys who couldn't care less if their wide bar fitted between 2 trees. If they do. They probably gonna try and attack that section by getting the tyre closer to one of the trees and slip through with the bike tilted and off camber. Now that we got that out of the way, I'll try and explain why it is we see these trends on almost all new bikes. All Mountain riding has been around for a long time. Enduro was initially the race format of AM Riding. Now everyone just calls it Enduro instead of AM. It would seem then that the Enduro bandwagon has commercialized AM riding to such an extent that the trends found previously in AM/Enduro bikes have filted down to XC riding aswell. Through axles have replaced quick release because any rider can benefit from stiffness irregardless of riding dicipline. These were previously only Downhill and AM bikes. Fork Manufacturers Have adopted thicker stanchions across the board (Look at Rockshox's new range) Previously shorter travel forks were the ones with noodly pipes and thick stanchions and through axles were reserved for longtravel gravity stuff. Now all the forks are getting fatter. The thing is XC riders these days throw their bikes around much the same way gravity riders do. They too benefit from stiffness previously overlooked in the industry. Drivetrains: I see even one Giants new Anthems comes stock 1x11 drive train. Its just new industry standards and its the same reason we see wider bars on new bikes these days because when you buy a new bike you either want the performance benefit of a wider bar or if you don't. You can just cut it down to a size you feel comfortable with.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

richde said:


> Motorcycles turn by leaning over on the tire, but for some reason, bicycles have been designed for years as if the major turning force should be generated turning the front tire. Why?


They are actually not that different. At higher speeds, leaning a bike does produce a countersteering effect. At low speeds, steering with the front tire in the direction of the turn is helpful or even required, with or without leaning the bike.

If they seem very different it's simply because mountainbikes are often turned at the low speeds where the front wheel is very active, and motorcycles often are not.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

popcorn_skollie said:


> It's the enduro bandwagon and its effects on mountain biking in general.


That's a large share of it, but not the whole story. The first >700mm bar I got was in 2006, from Niner. They were very much (still are) a XC company and wide bars were becoming popular in response to the growth of single speed mountain bikes.


----------



## herrhaus (May 29, 2009)

I like handlebars....they help me steer. 

What is 680, 700, 720, 740, 750, and/or 760 anyway? My bars are 29-1/8".


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

ColinL said:


> They are actually not that different. At higher speeds, leaning a bike does produce a countersteering effect. At low speeds, steering with the front tire in the direction of the turn is helpful or even required, with or without leaning the bike.
> 
> If they seem very different it's simply because mountainbikes are often turned at the low speeds where the front wheel is very active, and motorcycles often are not.


Also it might be bit of riding style thing, if one is used to steer bicycle from handle bar, it might feel like mtb would not steer by banking, but it does.

It is also possible to steer mtb by pushing handle bar, opposite steer or something like that it was called, often done with motorbikes, when enough speed, it is faster to turn to push handle bar.

For example you want to turn left, you push left end of handle bar forward, just small punch, then bike tilts automatically and you actually turn left, push is to initiate leaning, then just slow wheel from turning too fast.

I rarely squeeze my handle bar, I just tap it a little and have very loose touch, handle bar is moving a lot in relation to my hands, as is whole bike, steering mostly by leaning.

Of course in motorbike speeds can be close to 100mph when with bicycle only 30-40mph, so it will feel different, but it is possible to use same kind of steering.

Mtb is also quite stable at low speed because it does not change direction from lean so aggressively, that has some effect for sure, but cool thing is that you can choose this, it depends how you grip from the bar, imo.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

herrhaus said:


> What is 680, 700, 720, 740, 750, and/or 760 anyway? My bars are 29-1/8".


I'm starting to believe what they say about the US education system.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Bikes are steered by leaning the bike, not by torquing on the handlebars.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

grumpy old biker said:


> Of course in motorbike speeds can be close to 100mph when with bicycle only 30-40mph, so it will feel different, but it is possible to use same kind of steering.


Average speed for cross country rides is more like 7-10mph, see how your motorbike handles at those speeds.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

herrhaus said:


> What is 680, 700, 720, 740, 750, and/or 760 anyway? My bars are 29-1/8".


That's the width measurement in millimeters. Your bars are about 740.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Average speed for cross country rides is more like 7-10mph, see how your motorbike handles at those speeds.


It requires turning the front wheel!

Full disclosure: I've had lots of time on all things 2-wheeled.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

MikeDee said:


> Bikes are steered by leaning the bike, not by torquing on the handlebars.


Countersteering works on bicycles too.
"Push your inside shoulder down to initiate the turn" is common advise for cornering when you are above the average speed for a trail ride.


----------



## herrhaus (May 29, 2009)

net wurker said:


> That's the width measurement in millimeters. Your bars are about 740.


Ooooohhhhhhhhhhhh.....now I get it.  Sorry about my lame attempt at humor.

I've been told that my bar is long enough.


----------



## NYsurfer (Jul 28, 2013)

Wider bars do give you more immediate and quick steering response by once you get beyond the width of your shoulders you're losing efficiency not gaining it.

Once you start clipping trees and rocks and can't traverse your local trails you've lost the pint entirely.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

herrhaus said:


> Sorry about my lame attempt at humor.


Sorry I didn't catch your sarcasm. I really thought you were a stoopid rube, and that I was helping you out.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

Since average shoulder width is about 18" (450mm), that means I can almost double my efficiency by cutting my 800mm bars in half! 

Excellent advice, thank you sir.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

There's a reason internet advice is free.


----------



## Golfster (Apr 9, 2015)

*Wide bars are in for now...*

Until these become a little more mainstream in mountain biking.


----------



## herrhaus (May 29, 2009)

net wurker said:


> There's a reason internet advice is free.


I will accept $$$ for mine tho, if you are willing to pay me for it.

In all seriousness (or lack thereof), the only reason I've read thru this entire thread was for the entertainment factor. I was just trying to do my part.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Average speed for cross country rides is more like 7-10mph, see how your motorbike handles at those speeds.


Trial bike is just fine, no issue with enduro either, even scooter does fine. Not sure about those plastic bullets, I'm too p*ssy to try one out 

But for example scooter on technical terrain is just plain terrible, every rock turns it's steering wheel, while mtb doesn't really care what is under the tires, soft tires have lot to do with that and of course, there are differences in geometry too.

I think my scooter has wider bar than my mtb, what to figure out from that?

I have seen those road bike kind of handle bars in mtb bikes, those are usually very narrow, never tested one, but some people swear by those, it might provide proper entertainment to have old school XC bar 660mm or so, modern 760mm or similar and such road bike bar against each other on trail, that kind of video would be fun to watch.


----------



## BobbyWilliams (Aug 3, 2004)

My bar width currently is,
2.52780785 × 10^-17 Parsecs

I have been contemplating cutting them down to 
2.46299226 × 10^-17 Parsecs

For those too ignorant to understand that means I'm considering cutting my 0.00387735624 furlong bars down to 0.00377793685 furlongs.


----------



## Golfster (Apr 9, 2015)

BobbyWilliams said:


> My bar width currently is,
> 2.52780785 × 10^-17 Parsecs
> 
> I have been contemplating cutting them down to
> ...


That's furlong. Fursure.


----------



## herrhaus (May 29, 2009)

BobbyWilliams said:


> My bar width currently is,
> 2.52780785 × 10^-17 Parsecs
> 
> I have been contemplating cutting them down to
> ...


Yeah....but what does your significant "other" think about that?? Will they still be satisfied??


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Narrower bars are more stable at speed. Case in point, try to ride one handed with the one hand on the grip. Now move your hand near the stem. Much more stable.


----------



## VQuick (May 14, 2013)

MikeDee said:


> Narrower bars are more stable at speed. Case in point, try to ride one handed with the one hand on the grip. Now move your hand near the stem. Much more stable.


That does not prove your point. If you are riding one handed, you want your hand near the stem to support your weight and stay centered over the bike. When riding two handed, this is not a problem, and narrower bars are not more stable at speed when riding two handed. Besides, you can always choke-up and put your hand near the stem no matter how wide the bars.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> Narrower bars are more stable at speed. Case in point, try to ride one handed with the one hand on the grip. Now move your hand near the stem. Much more stable.


I find it more stable to ride without hands than with one hand at higher speeds.

On smooth tarmac that is


----------



## herrhaus (May 29, 2009)




----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

ColinL said:


> They are actually not that different. At higher speeds, leaning a bike does produce a countersteering effect. At low speeds, steering with the front tire in the direction of the turn is helpful or even required, with or without leaning the bike.
> 
> If they seem very different it's simply because mountainbikes are often turned at the low speeds where the front wheel is very active, and motorcycles often are not.


I mean the difference between simply turning the bar and turning the bar to initiate, or in conjunction with, a lean onto the side of the tire. You ride a motorcycle at walking speed by keeping the bike upright and turning the bars, but I'm talking about the speeds where steering is more critical.

You can ride at slow speeds with bars of just about any width, it's when you're going faster that it becomes more critical. So, if the wide bars help you going faster, don't have any real drawbacks for slow speed work...why not use them?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richde said:


> You can ride at slow speeds with bars of just about any width, it's when you're going faster that it becomes more critical. So, if the wide bars help you going faster, don't have any real drawbacks for slow speed work...why not use them?


I'd say if anything you've got that backwards, but I've found wide bars to be better at both ends of the range.

After reviewing this thread though I'm starting to doubt myself and I'm considering going back to the future and cutting mine down to around 580mm or so. Yee freaking-Haw!


----------



## vandyketom (Sep 13, 2008)

I run wide bars on my DH bike 780 mm.
On my 29er I have 700mm. It is just fine. I think a lot of people never try a shorter stem before they go to wider bars. The shorter stem makes the steering control better also. And you can still get through tight spots easier.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

popcorn_skollie said:


> There is no arguing the benefits of forward geometry when coupled with a wider bar and shorter stem. Its a performance benefit more than it is comfort one.


There is nothing funnier than a sentence on a forum that begins with 'there is no arguing'. Never not funny. :lol:


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)




----------



## bigflamingtaco (Oct 26, 2013)

TL;DR 

Shoulder width is not the end all of control. A longer bar will always offer a leverage advantage.

I've always had to hunt for wide roadie bars. Normal width drop bars put my hands closer together than my shoulders, and breathing took more effort.

Average width MTB bars were just fine, but when I switched the front tire from a 2.1 Kenda Nevegal to a 2.4 Geax Goma, and was able to run a lower pressure, the amount of force required to navigate hard packed switch backs increased dramatically. I no longer had the confidence I desired, and found myself having to use brute force that at times ended in disaster. The simple solution was a much wider bar.

I treat the "disadvantage" of a wider bar as a new challenge, and have fallen back on my meager standing skills as a roadie to slowly navigate tight sections of trail. I enjoy it, and understand not everyone does.

The nice thing about wider bars becoming standard is one can cut them down to their preferred width, where I had to purchase a new bar just as I have had to do for all my bikes going on 30 years now.

D


----------



## alat (Oct 4, 2012)




----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Only 9 pages, we need more pointless argument. Here are the "best" handlebars, all wide!

The best mountain bike handlebars - MBR


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

I could care less what others ride as it is a personal choice. My new bike came with 740 carbon bars and I wanted to trim them because they felt too wide. I told this to my mechanic and he said no get new bars if you want but give these a go. These were the best bars for the bike he added and they work well. After a week I said I thought they were still just too wide and he said give it two months and if you do not like them trade them in.

I found where I was hitting my hands before after a bit of time i was clearing no problem the issue I think was I was looking at the obstacles thinking my bars were too wide and over reacting. Once I just rode and forgot that they were too wide I realized they were not. Now the shorter width on my hardtail feels off.

Still like both bikes glad I gave it time

ride what you like I will as well


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Only 9 pages, we need more pointless argument. Here are the "best" handlebars, all wide!
> 
> The best mountain bike handlebars - MBR


We need a new thread "Why are stems becoming so damn short?"


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Gallo said:


> I could care less what others ride as it is a personal choice. My new bike came with 740 carbon bars and I wanted to trim them because they felt too wide. I told this to my mechanic and he said no get new bars if you want but give these a go. These were the best bars for the bike he added and they work well. After a week I said I thought they were still just too wide and he said give it two months and if you do not like them trade them in.
> 
> I found where I was hitting my hands before after a bit of time i was clearing no problem the issue I think was I was looking at the obstacles thinking my bars were too wide and over reacting. Once I just rode and forgot that they were too wide I realized they were not. Now the shorter width on my hardtail feels off.
> 
> ...


Yup, you learn where your hands are after a while.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> We need a new thread "Why are stems becoming so damn short?"


No, why stems have been too damn long.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm thinking again, I know, I should not, but 680mm to 740mm is only 60mm that is 30mm for each side, which is tiny bit more than 1 inch.

If 1 inch would be too much distance to side of bike, then rider should have some serious skill to ride on that level of accuracy each time on tight spot?

Perhaps there is lot of psychological effect and not so much real effect. 

To get full palm width more width to either side, one would have to go 180mm wider bar, that would be 860mm if old bar would be 680mm as many old bike has. 

Would palm width then be an issue on trail? Do you guys ride so accurately or such tight spots where are no palm width to spare? 

Sadly I have no trails to ride, so I have no idea, but I would think that here could be lot of prejudgement and impressions in play instead of any valid scientific facts based on how small these changes are after all?


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> I haven't seen anyone in a pro/open XC race with "narrow" bars like those in years. Most are on 700mm+.
> 
> Courses are getting more technical. Wide bars help me go fast in the rough.


Yo, Le Duke! I just changed out my 580mm flat bars for 650s. Easton EA70 bars and stem. Yeah, I know what you're thinking... Not wide enough. Baby steps, Le Duke, baby steps. Just rode it around the court though. Seemed OK. We'll see when I get out on a ride.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

grumpy old biker said:


> Would palm width then be an issue on trail? Do you guys ride so accurately or such tight spots where are no palm width to spare?


Yes, that is why I started this whole deliciously opinionated thread.

The problem was that my stock 720mm bars, when gotten off the bike and walked up to the tree gap, sometimes literally would not fit. Ie a gap of 700mm. Other times, on descents, again getting off to walk up and check it out, I would have around an inch of play on both sides. So maybe a gap of 770mm.

The problem was, unless you are a surgeon with your bars while flying downhill over roots/rocks, you are almost certain to clip the trees. The other option is to chop your bars to give yourself more clearance. Average in this area is around 675mm bars.

That or I suppose I could just show up during the night with a hacksaw and remove the stupid narrow gaps.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

TSpice said:


> That or I suppose I could just show up during the night with a hacksaw and remove the stupid narrow gaps.


Dumbing down the trails!!!

If you cannot make the trail at the speed you are going, slow down until you can be accurate enough.


----------



## pcmark (Jul 10, 2010)

Not to add fuel to the debate, but last night I was climbing a singletrack trail when a rider coming down passed me. He was going slowly and being very polite. I was up against the cliff side, so couldnt go any further to the right, and he was on the trail drop off side. Well, we bumped bars. Still, I prefer my 'wide' bars at around 720mm.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

perttime said:


> Dumbing down the trails!!!
> 
> If you cannot make the trail at the speed you are going, slow down until you can be accurate enough.


not really. I ran into a situation on a local trail where as I crossed up my handlebars in wheelie to get though a tight gap, my 29er front wheel caught trees on both sides. I will cut one of those tree out and be much happier about it.


----------



## abaris (Feb 13, 2010)

perttime said:


> Dumbing down the trails!!!
> 
> If you cannot make the trail at the speed you are going, slow down until you can be accurate enough.


Or better yet, if you don't have the skills then get off bike and hang it up.

Sent from somewhere


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

TSpice said:


> Yes, that is why I started this whole deliciously opinionated thread.
> 
> The problem was that my stock 720mm bars, when gotten off the bike and walked up to the tree gap, sometimes literally would not fit. Ie a gap of 700mm. Other times, on descents, again getting off to walk up and check it out, I would have around an inch of play on both sides. So maybe a gap of 770mm.
> 
> ...


I think you should show up there with a hacksaw, since you didn't learn anything the last time you made this stupid comment.

I'd recommend a 32 tpi blade, it will give you a nice clean cut.


----------



## abaris (Feb 13, 2010)

Guess you're showing your reading comprehension and perhaps your IQ. 

If you want I can shorten your handlebars with that same hacksaw.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

MikeDee said:


> Yo, Le Duke! I just changed out my 580mm flat bars for 650s. Easton EA70 bars and stem. Yeah, I know what you're thinking... Not wide enough. Baby steps, Le Duke, baby steps. Just rode it around the court though. Seemed OK. We'll see when I get out on a ride.


I was riding 580mm bars until I went for a ride, one on one, with Adam Craig, when I was living in OR. Back in 2009 or so. It was a revelation. I went 660mm, 700mm, 740mm in rapid succession.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

TSpice said:


> Yes, that is why I started this whole deliciously opinionated thread.
> 
> The problem was that my stock 720mm bars, when gotten off the bike and walked up to the tree gap, sometimes literally would not fit. Ie a gap of 700mm. Other times, on descents, again getting off to walk up and check it out, I would have around an inch of play on both sides. So maybe a gap of 770mm.
> 
> ...


This is interesting, I would like to see such trails because I haven't really never lived on area where there would be trails and I'm wondering if I would ever ride such, might be too much for me, but then again maybe one gets used to such.

I would think that challenge of trail should not come from trees too close, so such trail could use little bit of cleanup, but don't know, maybe for some that is part of the 'thrill' ?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

TSpice said:


> Other times, on descents, again getting off to walk up and check it out, I would have around an inch of play on both sides. So maybe a gap of 770mm.
> 
> The problem was, unless you are a surgeon with your bars while flying downhill over roots/rocks, you are almost certain to clip the trees.


Not really. You don't even have to slow down that much.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

my bars were too wide to fit through a certain tree gap on one of the trails I rode once, so I cut my bars down:


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

I think the A-C height of the fork is a bigger problem


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

it's for my 700c+ setup that I use during cross season.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

TSpice said:


> I had to chop mine down to 675mm just to clear many of the single track tree gaps in my area.


Alright, let see some pics of multiple spots on trails in your area that you can't fit a bar more that 28" thru. I am genuinely curious to see some pics of trails like this so if others have some also lets see em.

I can think of a few spots where there are some minor issues with bushes, but not too serious and one spot that knocked me off my bike from a boulder on the right and a small cliff on the left, but that was my fault for not maneuvering correctly. I can't think of any spots on a trail with 2 trees that my bike with 31" wide bars won't fit thru, but my bike with 21.5" wide bars will fit.

I want to see pics with the bars inbetween the trees or whatever it is that requires short bars!


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

singletrackmack said:


> Alright, let see some pics of multiple spots on trails in your area that you can't fit a bar more that 28" thru. I am genuinely curious to see some pics of trails like this so if others have some also lets see em.
> 
> I can think of a few spots where there are some minor issues with bushes, but not too serious and one spot that knocked me off my bike from a boulder on the right and a small cliff on the left, but that was my fault for not maneuvering correctly. I can't think of any spots on a trail with 2 trees that my bike with 31" wide bars won't fit thru, but my bike with 21.5" wide bars will fit.
> 
> I want to see pics with the bars inbetween the trees or whatever it is that requires short bars!


Maybe we could have new topic where people could post tights spots from their trails, other challenging places and generally seeing what kind of trail challenges people face would be interesting to see, it would help everyone to understand better where each other point of view's are coming from.

US alone contains huge amount of completely different areas, rest of the planet has certainly trails many have not even though existing.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

H


Rogueldr said:


> I'm with you. I trim my bars down to about 685 max. I cant understand why bars are getting so wide nowadays either. I also deal with some tight singletrack through trees and I highly doubt an 800mm bar would fit. I guess its all about getting us to believe that what we already have and ride isn't good enough anymore. Just like 29ers, dropper posts and all the new "better" geometry on new bikes. I guess I'm what they would call a "retro-grouch."





TSpice said:


> Maybe the trails in my area are just completely against "the norm" then, as if I had anything wider than 720mm, I would slam my hands on trees every 200ft.
> 
> I actually had to replace my grips (when I still had 720 bars) because the outer 1-1.5" of the rubber was completely ripped off from grinding on trees.
> 
> A 750mm bar would easily clothesline me. Its like a dog walking through a doorway with a 5' stick. *thud*


Let's see some pics of those tight trails where you can't fit a bar wider than 720mm or 750mm or whatever you guys are saying any bigger won't fit.

Because it didn't happen if there are no pics... and from the way you guys are making it sound there should be quite a few pics of different spots on your trails that are too narrow. Again, I genuinely want to see some pics of these types of trails.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

singletrackmack said:


> H
> 
> Let's see some pics of those tight trails where you can't fit a bar wider than 720mm or 750mm or whatever you guys are saying any bigger won't fit.
> 
> Because it didn't happen if there are no pics... and from the way you guys are making it sound there should be quite a few pics of different spots on your trails that are too narrow. Again, I genuinely want to see some pics of these types of trails.


I am heading out shortly on a 2 hour ride where there is in fact one place I can't fit my 800mm bars between trees. And the trees are directly across from each other on a loooooooooooong down so the swim technique will not work. Both trees are filled with "bar scars", in the words of the Taxi Driver himself. They are not marked with red diamonds (as are all other narrow passages in the area) because the trail is not sanctioned. It's called Sugar Mama at West Bragg Creek and is the second leg of the Southern Comfort/Southern Flow/Sugar Mama loop (it goes by many names).

Southern Flow Loop: West Bragg Creek, Alberta, Canada | bikepirate

I don't normally take my phone (or stop on rides) but I may this aft and take a pic or two.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Partly why my bars are 750mm:


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

IPunchCholla said:


> Partly why my bars are 750mm:


Great pics, what a crazy place to put trail trough, watching those pics I feel like taking out my chainsaw 

I guess trail has been there for quite a while and trees have just grown bit big? As there is some log next to tree, I guess that is to prevent going around that gap, so that place is kind of planned feature of that trail now?

Can you even ride through that gap with bar length on that bike? I know I would not dare to try.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

grumpy old biker said:


> Great pics, what a crazy place to put trail trough, watching those pics I feel like taking out my chainsaw
> 
> I guess trail has been there for quite a while and trees have just grown bit big? As there is some log next to tree, I guess that is to prevent going around that gap, so that place is kind of planned feature of that trail now?
> 
> Can you even ride through that gap with bar length on that bike? I know I would not dare to try.


It was planned that way. So it's a feature. A lot of people ride around, hence the logs. This section of trail is meant to be tight and windy. There are some switchback seconds where you have to weight weird in order to make it through trees that mean over the trail.

I do ride this gap. Very slowly. Sometimes I don't make it.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Nice pic Ipunchcholla! Cool to see those narrow spots. My 810mm bars would not fit through that.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

grumpy old biker said:


> Great pics, what a crazy place to put trail trough, watching those pics I feel like taking out my chainsaw
> 
> I guess trail has been there for quite a while and trees have just grown bit big? As there is some log next to tree, I guess that is to prevent going around that gap, so that place is kind of planned feature of that trail now?
> 
> Can you even ride through that gap with bar length on that bike? I know I would not dare to try.


I would definitely ride my bike through something like that. The deal is you have to slow down and worm your way through. It's fun, you should try in sometime.

Don't saw, practice!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

IPunchCholla said:


> It was planned that way. So it's a feature.


I can relate to laziness & neglect but as an intentional feature that is whacked, just my opinion. Chainsaw.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> I can relate to laziness & neglect but as an intentional feature that is whacked, just my opinion. Chainsaw.


Well it is a technically oriented trail with tons of features, many of which are above my pay grade.

Further down the trail there was a hard right hand turn where you had to try and thread between two trees that were about 6 inches apart at the base suited to just wider apart than your pedals then were just wider than my 750mm bars at bar height only way I could see it being done was to turn into it, stop, noise wheels and slide the rear around until it was lined up and then try and shoot the gap. I never made it before someone cut down one of the trees. Kinda makes me sad.

Everything else is doable with 800+ bars. Two spots (now one) on a 1+ mile trail doesn't seem to warrant cutting down a tree to me especially since there is a fun trail that takes you to the same dump out spot. Or a fire road.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

IPunchCholla, you could go to 753mm....


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> IPunchCholla, you could go to 753mm....


My previous bars were 754.6mm they made it through.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

I have to pull a short manual and go through gaps with front wheel at 45 degrees to get 720 bars through. Drives me nuts, but not so keen on cutting carbon bars down.

Reason they exist is because most trails were built when a really wide bar was 660mm wide, and motorbikes have wider bars so you make a trail narrow, and motos won't use the trail.

Even have one mate who won't come on rides when we go to a particular spot because he hits too many trees - he runs 780's - widest of the group


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

*Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?*

Maybe this one could be merged with the "Dropper posts are faster" thread?

I hope 10 pages has been enough for someone to point out wide bars get narrow for a moment when you flick them.


----------



## Lou Z. Ryder (Sep 9, 2014)

*Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?*

Speaking of which, now that we have dropper posts why doesn't someone make some "squeezer bars"? 
Got 800 mm bars and you're approaching a tight gap in the trees? Hit a lever and bam, they telescope down to 650.
Btw, how many furlongs are there in a light year?


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

Some trails, and entire riding areas, require more than a moment of "wide bars getting narrow". I never would have dreamed of cutting my bars except that I'm spending the summer somewhere that there are countless small trees crowding the trails, many of them on the inside of corners where you'd love to bank a turn. You could keep your 720-740 mm bars and ride slow or smash them repeatedley....or you can accept that they aren't the right tool for the job. 

I don't love the trails like I love the trails where I came from, but the wide bars simply aren't the answer here. I think wide bars are great if you just have a few features that make them a challenge but they are just a mistake when it's a pervasive issue. It did really hurt to cut them though.....it felt like I was cutting off part of my arm. And I still have among the widest bars around, because the best local riders have really narrow bars. Poor trail building, maybe, but at some point you just have to adapt.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

IPunchCholla said:


> Partly why my bars are 750mm:


Cool, we have a few isolated spots out here like that, but no reason to cut down our bars, because they are so isolated.

I have developed my technique by approaching at an angle and leaning(worming as described above) to get the bike through in each direction, it's fun to do when I'm successful and good to build skill.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

IPunchCholla said:


> It was planned that way. So it's a feature. A lot of people ride around, hence the logs. This section of trail is meant to be tight and windy. There are some switchback seconds where you have to weight weird in order to make it through trees that mean over the trail.
> 
> I do ride this gap. Very slowly. Sometimes I don't make it.


Those people realize that trees grow out as well as up, right?

Dumb and unsustainable.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I can see those narrow gaps as training device.

It just shows how diverse mtb is and it is not difficult to replace bar and stem, get wide and narrow setup, use one for riding you plan to do today, so you get best of both worlds 

Maybe that big majority is moving to different kind of riding or rides different kind of trails in general, hence wider bars seems to be the trend, but there are good narrow bars still being made. 

Who is going to say to MacAskill that he rides it wrong? Why then preference to narrow gaps that will get challenging in future would be wrong? Different is not wrong, just different, imo.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

richde said:


> Those people realize that trees grow out as well as up, right?
> 
> Dumb and unsustainable.


I agree, lucky for me wide bar have been thing here for years now and the majority of tight spot have either been rerouted, cut, in couple case hit so many times that the trees are actually gouged out enough to get though now.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Please don't discriminate. Handlebars (and tires) are the only way I've been able to get wide my whole adult life.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

richde said:


> Those people realize that trees grow out as well as up, right?
> 
> Dumb and unsustainable.


Don't think it is a sustainability issue. Cut down a tree now, or maybe in ten years, if not even longer given the slow growth rates we have around here (desert SW), or maybe never as the trees grow apart as they go up. Wide bars have been a thing here since before this trail was built. You can get through even with 800mm bars. You just have to angle or manual. I've made that gap on 780s. Had to lift the front wheel.

Like I said. This is a technical trail, built with features meant to challenge even expert riders. There are numerous lines, some with double red difficulty (a four foot turning drop to a near immediate 8 foot 75 degree slab roller to a 4 foot drop to a banked turn). I can't ride the easiest line without dabbing and won't try many of the drops, yet, because they are slow speed, 3 to 4 foot affairs. I'll take drops that size at speed, but my skills are not there for going off them slow. So I walk around those features or take the easier line, which didn't have big features but is still hard. None of the trail is fast overall, only in very short stretches. If you don't want a trail where you are going to be stopped, unless you are very good, you take the other trail that goes to the same place. That one is fast with rock gardens and no issues with bar width.

If there are trails out there where this narrow of a gap is frequent, I'm not going to go fast even with 680 or even smaller bars. A couple of inches won't give me the confidence to try it at speed. I would still be slowing down. Hitting a tree at 10+ miles per hour hurts. And I need a larger margin of error than two inches.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

singletrackmack said:


> ...Let's see some pics of those tight trails where you can't fit a bar wider than 720mm or 750mm or whatever you guys are saying any bigger won't fit.
> 
> Because it didn't happen if there are no pics... and from the way you guys are making it sound there should be quite a few pics of different spots on your trails that are too narrow. Again, I genuinely want to see some pics of these types of trails.


I hit about a half dozen tight spots today with my 800mm bars. This one was the tightest. I could barely fit through - there was less than a half inch of clearance. Perfectly offset too so very tough to "swim" through it.
















In the second photo you can kinda see bar scars on all 3 trees to the rider's left. The entire ride was filled with bar scarred trees but like I said, this was the toughest one for me. I could swim through all the others.

This leg of the loop (Sugar Mama) is a 20 minute non-stop pretty high speed down (although it looks flat in the pics). The first time I rode this trail this year I thought I broke my right hand hitting a tree (no injury at all though).


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I hit about a half dozen tight spots today with my 800mm bars. This one was the tightest. I could barely fit through - there was less than a half inch of clearance. Perfectly offset too so very tough to "swim" through it.
> 
> View attachment 1007394
> 
> ...


I might try to go right next to log that is on your right and try to get right end of handle bar around tree on your right, then lean bike right, but not sure how possible that would be in practice, there seem to be bit of slope and one would need to go quite slowly.

I should get my 720mm bars this week, just need to recover my injuries, but then I can try to find out tight spots, which might not be around here though.

One thing I find weird in these photos is that there is not much undergrowth compared to what we have, also soil seem to be enough solid to ride on, here bike would sink close to BB into soil if riding off the fire roads and dual tracks.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

grumpy old biker said:


> I might try to go right next to log that is on your right and try to get right end of handle bar around tree on your right, then lean bike right, but not sure how possible that would be in practice, there seem to be bit of slope and one would need to go quite slowly.
> 
> I should get my 720mm bars this week, just need to recover my injuries, but then I can try to find out tight spots, which might not be around here though.
> 
> One thing I find weird in these photos is that there is not much undergrowth compared to what we have, also soil seem to be enough solid to ride on, here bike would sink close to BB into soil if riding off the fire roads and dual tracks.


The pics are kinda deceiving. Best to stay on this trail for the most part than to veer off. Besides, I try to stay smack dab in the middle of every single track I am on. If there is already a ride around something, I may take it if I have to. But I'm not going to create one. Nothing like a nice, tight single track. I don't like them being widened. The tighter the better (I'm referring to the trail width, not the width between trees).

Damn that was a fun ride today. I CANNOT wait to get out tomorrow. I almost went again tonight but thought I should save my energy for tomorrow. My interest in biking is at an all time high right now. I am so savouring these days.


----------



## SVO (May 25, 2005)

My 30th year riding MTBs so I've seen all the fads. The notable recent trend is whatever looks more moto, and I'd include wide bars in that, along with riser bars, banishment of bar ends, shorter stems, etc. There are varying degrees of engineering merit associated with these "innovations", but for the most part they do nothing to advance the experience, but a good deal to enhance the look on the Hero upload. Sure, you use less muscle to control the same line with wider bars. Were you literally unable to control your bike before? Or were your shoulders exhausted long before your legs or other? Any evidence it adds precision to your riding? Seriously doubt it.

I am not a technology curmudgeon. I was a very early adopter of changes that actually make sense from a performance perspective, like tubeless, larger wheels, more travel, advanced suspension designs, etc. Super wide bars just don't fit in that company, IMHO. Especially if you ever ride near a tree...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

SVO said:


> Sure, you use less muscle to control the same line with wider bars. Were you literally unable to control your bike before?


Yep, literally. Damn thing had a mind of its own and would veer off into the cactus chasing after deer & jackrabbits & whatnot.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

SVO said:


> My 30th year riding MTBs so I've seen all the fads. The notable recent trend is whatever looks more moto, and I'd include wide bars in that, along with riser bars, banishment of bar ends, shorter stems, etc. There are varying degrees of engineering merit associated with these "innovations", but for the most part they do nothing to advance the experience, but a good deal to enhance the look on the Hero upload. Sure, you use less muscle to control the same line with wider bars. Were you literally unable to control your bike before? Or were your shoulders exhausted long before your legs or other? Any evidence it adds precision to your riding? Seriously doubt it.
> 
> I am not a technology curmudgeon. I was a very early adopter of changes that actually make sense from a performance perspective, like tubeless, larger wheels, more travel, advanced suspension designs, etc. Super wide bars just don't fit in that company, IMHO. Especially if you ever ride near a tree...


Speaking as someone who got his first MTB in 1987, I couldn't disagree more. Besides, the moto look really started to come across in the 90s - remember the heyday of Alpinestars?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

IPunchCholla said:


> Don't think it is a sustainability issue. Cut down a tree now, or maybe in ten years, if not even longer given the slow growth rates we have around here (desert SW), or maybe never as the trees grow apart as they go up. Wide bars have been a thing here since before this trail was built. You can get through even with 800mm bars. You just have to angle or manual. I've made that gap on 780s. Had to lift the front wheel.
> 
> Like I said. This is a technical trail, built with features meant to challenge even expert riders. There are numerous lines, some with double red difficulty (a four foot turning drop to a near immediate 8 foot 75 degree slab roller to a 4 foot drop to a banked turn). I can't ride the easiest line without dabbing and won't try many of the drops, yet, because they are slow speed, 3 to 4 foot affairs. I'll take drops that size at speed, but my skills are not there for going off them slow. So I walk around those features or take the easier line, which didn't have big features but is still hard. None of the trail is fast overall, only in very short stretches. If you don't want a trail where you are going to be stopped, unless you are very good, you take the other trail that goes to the same place. That one is fast with rock gardens and no issues with bar width.
> 
> If there are trails out there where this narrow of a gap is frequent, I'm not going to go fast even with 680 or even smaller bars. A couple of inches won't give me the confidence to try it at speed. I would still be slowing down. Hitting a tree at 10+ miles per hour hurts. And I need a larger margin of error than two inches.


Worse than the obvious fact that the trees will grow and close the gap, it is a "gotcha."

It's fine if the trail is only used by people who know about it, but someone who doesn't know about it will see the tracks, see that it's the trail, and try it without using the secret handshake. It's like a dirt road turning into a steep singletrack rock garden as the road dips. Everything is going fine, and then without any warning, it isn't.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

richde said:


> Worse than the obvious fact that the trees will grow and close the gap, it is a "gotcha."
> 
> It's fine if the trail is only used by people who know about it, but someone who doesn't know about it will see the tracks, see that it's the trail, and try it without using the secret handshake. It's like a dirt road turning into a steep singletrack rock garden as the road dips. Everything is going fine, and then without any warning, it isn't.


Well. The trail is straight going up to those trees for a good 50 feet if not longer, on a trail that has been winding through tight leaning trees so you have to take it slow for a good half mile, so I don't think anyone would run into them not realizing the gap is narrow. Also, there is a giant sign at the start of the trail staying it is a technical trail requiring special skills and appropriate gear and that all features should be examined before riding. So not really a gotcha. Just a narrow spot you will have to manual with wide bars.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Does someone make a pump that will fit inside the bars? They're long enough.


----------



## NZPeterG (Mar 31, 2008)

😁

Kiwi Pete from the road


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

evasive said:


> Speaking as someone who got his first MTB in 1987, I couldn't disagree more. Besides, the moto look really started to come across in the 90s - remember the heyday of Alpinestars?


Been riding MTBs since 1984 and the only thing that made me literally say "holy s*it how did we do without this?" was disk brakes. Suspension forks are second. Clipless pedals third, rear suspension fourth. Wide bars, short stems, dropper posts don't rank at the top in my view.

YMMV so it's all good. Spend your money on what you want.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

andytiedye said:


> Does someone make a pump that will fit inside the bars? They're long enough.


Don't laugh. I have an Oddsey seat post from the 80's. They built a frame pump into the seat post. Waaaayy more practical than the 2 foot long Silca frame pump that was the standard at the time.

I should probably put that thing on ebay. I bet its worth some coin.

Odyssey Aerator Comp Bicycle Seatpost with Integrated Pump Combo 300 x 26 8 | eBay

Oh well...maybe they're not worth so much.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

zrm said:


> Been riding MTBs since 1984 and the only thing that made me literally say "holy s*it how did we do without this?" was disk brakes. Suspension forks are second. Clipless pedals third, rear suspension fourth. Wide bars, short stems, dropper posts don't rank at the top in my view.
> 
> YMMV so it's all good. Spend your money on what you want.


I'm not suggesting they're the most important development in mountain biking, but rather disputing that their only tangible benefit is looking more "moto" in "hero uploads." Not everyone who likes them is a new rider with no appreciation of the sport's development, but that seems to be the subtext in a lot of posts like the one I was replying to.


----------



## ezweave (Jul 9, 2004)

This is a chocolate vs vanilla ice cream question. Really an example of Parkinson's law of triviality. Sure it can be fun to draw a line in the sand and vehemently defend it, but there's no right or wrong. I like 710 mm bars. That seems wide to me. But you're free to ride what you want. Maybe you'll be viewed as a mountain bike Fred, with your Primal Pink Floyd jersey or bar ends. Whatever. If you're having fun and being safe/sensible/polite, who cares? Besides, I'd rather ***** about short socks.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

ezweave said:


> This is a chocolate vs vanilla ice cream question. Really an example of Parkinson's law of triviality. Sure it can be fun to draw a line in the sand and vehemently defend it, but there's no right or wrong. I like 710 mm bars. That seems wide to me. But you're free to ride what you want. Maybe you'll be viewed as a mountain bike Fred, with your Primal Pink Floyd jersey or bar ends. Whatever. If you're having fun and being safe/sensible/polite, who cares? Besides, I'd rather ***** about short socks.


Hey now! My short socks have increased my speed on long segments by 33.792%. Anyone can see the future is short socks. In fact today I am going to test out my revolutionary prototype toeless-topless socks. I expect nothing less than being able to coast uphill.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I can't eat vanilla ice cream plan, it has to be with a brownie, pie, etc...Not to mention the blue bell commercials are just always so creepy.


----------



## ezweave (Jul 9, 2004)

IPunchCholla said:


> Hey now! My short socks have increased my speed on long segments by 33.792%. Anyone can see the future is short socks. In fact today I am going to test out my revolutionary prototype toeless-topless socks. I expect nothing less than being able to coast uphill.


You'll sell a pair to everyone who wears KEEN SPD sandals. It's the path to riches.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

I caught up a tractor going dual track same direction I was going, I had no issues estimating gap even I just went from 630mm bar to 720mm bar, it was tight squeeze and I did use speed excess of 20mph while tractor was going at walking speed, but trees did not caught my bar ends.

Really I don't have much of tight spots here, something like that must be the tightest I find, minus the garage door, bar is wider than small door.

Better choose right bar for your riding though, telescopic bars are still in the future, I guess.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Back to narrow bars, 
Lee Likes Bikes


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> Back to narrow bars,
> Lee Likes Bikes


That is interesting. My shoulders are injury free and I'm quite comfortable on 770mm bars. I can't imagine going that narrow any more but pain is a great motivator so I understand why he's trying them.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I did some push-ups yesterday and measured the distance between the outside of my hands. It varied in several measurements, but it was around 700mm. So, there seems to be a connection between what the body considers the best strength position and the handlebar width people are preferring.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> That is interesting. My shoulders are injury free and I'm quite comfortable on 770mm bars. I can't imagine going that narrow any more but pain is a great motivator so I understand why he's trying them.


800mm bars this year for me and it's the first time I have had a shoulder problem in my life. X-rays, an ultrasound, an MRI and physio have all been required. I tilted the nose of my seat up a bit, and replaced my 20mm rise bar with a 35 mm rise, both of which helped, but I am still having some issues. I will have to re-assess things once the snow starts flying.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I did some push-ups yesterday and measured the distance between the outside of my hands. It varied in several measurements, but it was around 700mm. So, there seems to be a connection between what the body considers the best strength position and the handlebar width people are preferring.


It's more about stability than strength.

That said, the quest for everyone to use the widest bars possible doesn't make much sense. It seems like there should be some proportional sizing going on. Who would expect a man with relatively narrow shoulders, or a typical woman, to use the same bars as a big, broad shouldered, man?


----------



## bad andy (Feb 21, 2006)

Different strokes for different folks, but the mention of push-ups raises a few questions...

For those experiencing pain from a presumably too-wide bar... Is it muscular pain? or skeletal? If muscular perhaps some more riding or some pushups would help that? I do pushups regularly (sorta  ) and often change the width of my hands to focus on different muscle groups. 

Comfort is so subjective anyway, it really all just boils down to what feels best for you.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

bad andy said:


> ...For those experiencing pain from a presumably too-wide bar... Is it muscular pain? or skeletal? If muscular perhaps some more riding or some pushups would help that? I do pushups regularly (sorta  ) and often change the width of my hands to focus on different muscle groups...


Mine is mechanical - my shoulder clicks like a sonofa b after long rides, although MUCH less now than it did. At times, it feels like it is more in my scapula than my shoulder. I am on the mend. I hope that with the adjustments I made to my saddle and bar, and being more conscious on the trail to not put excessive weight on my hands or be a victim of the Gorilla Grip Syndrome squeezing my grips ridiculously hard, that I will be back to 100% soon.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> That is interesting. My shoulders are injury free and I'm quite comfortable on 770mm bars. I can't imagine going that narrow any more but pain is a great motivator so I understand why he's trying them.


The thing with him is that he's been a proponent of wide bars for some time. From his blogs...he always recommended a wide bar with a super short stem. Kinda ironic that the his wide bar is causing his shoulder issues. He's going 7" shorter. That's a big difference.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

If you ride with your shoulders scrunched up towards your ears, your shoulders rounded too far forward, or your shoulders too far back, that's going to cause you neck and upper back issues. Bike fit matters. If that means a different sized bar/stem, than so be it.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

RS VR6 said:


> The thing with him is that he's been a proponent of wide bars for some time. From his blogs...he always recommended a wide bar with a super short stem. Kinda ironic that the his wide bar is causing his shoulder issues. He's going 7" shorter. That's a big difference.


I haven't read the linked blog post, but he's had issues with each shoulder from an injury and surgery for a long time. There's a page in his/Lopes book about it. The bar may have exacerbated his issues, but it didn't cause them.


----------



## SVO (May 25, 2005)

RS VR6 said:


> Back to narrow bars,
> Lee Likes Bikes


Good link. I took a class with Lee and it was useful, if not revelatory. I got no problem with extra wide bars until...

- People start arguing to take out trees to increase trail width
- Flat bars and angled stems, inherently lighter and stronger at the same geometry, are driven from my LBS in favor of riser bars and 0 to low-degree shortie stems.
- Many bars are not compatible with the Ergon grips/barends that my creaky old hands and shoulders prefer.

AFAIK there is no technical/engineering argument to make in favor of riser bars: It is purely about style. Please, some bright engineer on here: prove me wrong!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

SVO said:


> Good link. I took a class with Lee and it was useful, if not revelatory. I got no problem with extra wide bars until...
> 
> - People start arguing to take out trees to increase trail width
> - Flat bars and angled stems, inherently lighter and stronger at the same geometry, are driven from my LBS in favor of riser bars and 0 to low-degree shortie stems.
> ...


If you run a 35mm stem you effectively have no rise. that where riser bars can be nice.

As yes trees should come out of trails. Just because people bars were not wide enough when the trail was made does nt mean that the trail should stay that way.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yes, the shorter the stem the less rise it can have. You are right, flat bars make more sense if you can get the to the height that's right for you. Mine rise 10mm and that is from the upsweep.


----------



## trainnvain (Sep 14, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> If you run a 35mm stem you effectively have no rise. that where riser bars can be nice.
> 
> As yes trees should come out of trails. Just because people bars were not wide enough when the trail was made does nt mean that the trail should stay that way.


That's why I cut my fork longer and swap spacers around to suit my fancy.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Thread: Is wide bars becoming the new thing?*

Why is this thread from 2004' re-birthed?


----------



## iowamtb (May 17, 2014)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Why is this thread from 2004' re-birthed?


You know Junkie I was about to reply till I read your post lol. Wait! I guess I am replying anyways ha ha!


----------



## Tihead (Oct 5, 2006)

100% agree with your too wide comment. Bars are now about as wide as I ran on my 215# Maico motocross bike back in the day. Why would a 25# bike require as much leverage to control as a motocross bike? It will take a while for the adopters of the too wide fashion trend to reach Step-1 and admit they went too far...


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Tihead said:


> It will take a while for the adopters of the too wide fashion trend to reach Step-1 and admit they went too far...


Well, you don't know what is enough until you know what's too much. 
I think it's safe to say that this is too much...
Yardstick 915mm Handlebar - Superstar Components


----------



## trainnvain (Sep 14, 2004)

I measured my old bars ( 684?Easton) someone gave me some Raceface, so I slapped them on ( 746?) 
Feel a little different, but nothing special.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Just put 720mm bars in my bike (from 650). Shortened the stem from 100mm to 70. Going out riding this morning to try it out.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

*Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?*



MikeDee said:


> Just put 720mm bars in my bike (from 650). Shortened the stem from 100mm to 70. Going out riding this morning to try it out.


Not feeling the love. Felt a bit uncomfortable. Stiffness on the inside of the forearms and elbows. I guess I'll give it a couple of more rides. What was also weird was standing while climbing. My hands were farther back because of the shorter stem and bar sweep and slightly higher bar position. I did not like the feeling. I'm not the kind of rider that rarely gets out of the saddle. The bar ends were OK for that though, but the position on them felt too wide. I also felt like that I was sitting back more on my saddle. Too much so I think, like I could feel the back edge. Maybe I should try a longer stem. I think the 650/100mm bar/stem worked better for me.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Easiest way to visually show the "control" of bar difference:

Take a look at steering wheels:

Typical steering wheel (~14-16in diameter)
City Bus (~2ft diameter)
Fork Lift (8in diameter)

Now which gives you more control? There is no single answer. They all have their purposes, they all have their strengths, they all have their weaknesses.

City Bus - Ultra Wide - Large diameter: Less twitchy at high speed, provides the operator more power if necessary under force, requires significant user movement at slow speed.

Fork Lift - Narrow - Small diameter: Very twitchy at high speed, struggles with power transfer if under force, very exacting at slow speed.

The standard steering wheel, which is what I would translate to around 650-675mm bars, is kind of the compromise between the two.

If you typically ride fast while under a lot of force (ie descent) if you read above, it naturally makes sense you want to go wider. If you ride slower through narrow areas where precision is more important than raw speed, narrower is better. If you plan on doing everything? You have to pick your poison and just deal with the pros and cons where they lie.

In the end, rider preference.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> Not feeling the love. Felt a bit uncomfortable. Stiffness on the inside of the forearms and elbows. I guess I'll give the a couple of more rides.


We had chat with friend recently and he did not like wider bars, issues with uncomfortable feeling, even little pain. Then we measured our shoulders, mine were 21 inch, he had 19 inch, for me 720mm is very comfortable, but for him 710mm is not good.

There surely must be some limit how wide person can go, that is at least conclusion we could figure out from our limited samples.

I have bar ends so 720mm bar is probably effectively 700mm, but I find that for comfort side of thing I could even go wider.

Not liking the lack of feedback and easier washout on soft stuff though.

I'm using 35mm stem as I have weird measures I guess, handlebar feels to be now in good position, but I wish I could take of good bit of top tube, I would need to go to S frame size from L to get reach tuned where I like it, but seat post would need to be mile long and with quite lot of negative setback.

Of course this makes problem of washout worse as there is less weight on front, I might try 50mm stem if it would give better feel that way, but it might bring back pains to hands.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

MikeDee said:


> Not feeling the love. Felt a bit uncomfortable. Stiffness on the inside of the forearms and elbows. I guess I'll give the a couple of more rides.


Clearly not wide/short enough. 800/50. Why did you not follow the instructions properly?

Just kidding...


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

*Is wide bars becoming the new "thing"?*



TSpice said:


> Easiest way to visually show the "control" of bar difference:
> 
> Take a look at steering wheels:
> 
> ...


What about a Formula 1 race car? A low rider type chain wheel?


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> What about a Formula 1 race car? A low rider type chain wheel?


I think it is bit misleading to talk about vehicles with steering wheel, because steering ratio comes to play with most which has not to do so much with steering wheel size than steering gear ratio.

Bicycle does not have steering ratio in that sense. Of course longer stem has some effect to how long distance handle bar travels on imaginary circular orbit for each degree of tire turning, stem is radius of circular orbit and thus affects steering speed.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

grumpy old biker said:


> I think it is bit misleading to talk about vehicles with steering wheel, because steering ratio comes to play with most which has not to do so much with steering wheel size than steering gear ratio.
> 
> Bicycle does not have steering ratio in that sense. Of course longer stem has some effect to how long distance handle bar travels on imaginary circular orbit for each degree of tire turning, stem is radius of circular orbit and thus affects steering speed.


It was an analogy, but the point I was trying to make still holds true.

Take a 750-800mm bar going <5mph and do almost a full 90deg left to full 90deg right. Your arms will have to travel further than if you had say 650-700mm bars. However at high speed, you will have an easier time keeping them perfectly stable preventing any high speed wobble.

Narrow bar however, you will have to be careful of that high speed wobble. The pro is not having to twist your arms as much in very slow side to side.

So yes, in vehicles there is an added gear ratio as well as power steering. So are they apples to apples? No they are not, but the underlying principle remains the same.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

TSpice said:


> It was an analogy, but the point I was trying to make still holds true.
> 
> Take a 750-800mm bar going <5mph and do almost a full 90deg left to full 90deg right. Your arms will have to travel further than if you had say 650-700mm bars. However at high speed, you will have an easier time keeping them perfectly stable preventing any high speed wobble.
> 
> ...


What happens when rider takes grip closer to stem, when going slow?

I think that stem has quite bit to do, not sure if more than bar width, but bar width has one effect that is addition to steering speed, if you push down on handle bar, on longer bar effect will be much stronger, there shorter bar is more stable than longer.

So far most positive effects of moving from 630mm to 720mm bar, has been breathability (is that a word?) on climbing.

At 37mph I did not found yet much improvement on downhill ability, but maybe it is the tire and stem which also were changed to different same time. If anything it is now more scary to go down eroded (rain removes sand reveals rocks) dual track at that speed. I need to experiment more.

In some sense it is now bit like 70-80's gas guzzlers, vague steering with lot of steering input required, absolutely no any kind of feel from steering. Well, not quite that bad, there is not that 1/4 turn which does nothing.


----------



## madsweeney (Sep 18, 2007)

grumpy old biker said:


> What happens when rider takes grip closer to stem, when going slow?
> 
> I think that stem has quite bit to do, not sure if more than bar width, but bar width has one effect that is addition to steering speed, if you push down on handle bar, on longer bar effect will be much stronger, there shorter bar is more stable than longer.
> 
> ...


Im in agreement. Stem length has more influence on twitchyness over bar width. Wide bars grant more leverage to control the twitch and assist with pumping the bike when climbing or sprinting. Longer stems manipulate the effective turn ratio.

Bar length, stem length, frame size and geometry, and fork rake are all connected. Its silly to emphasize only one aspect over all others.

End of the day find what works for you and ride.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never had to worry much about bar clearance west of the Mississippi, wide bars rule in the Rocky Mountain chunk.


Could be a problem in the thickly forested parts of Washington and Oregon. There are narrow trails here and to widen them may involve some significant timber clearing.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MikeDee said:


> Not feeling the love. Felt a bit uncomfortable. Stiffness on the inside of the forearms and elbows. I guess I'll give it a couple of more rides. What was also weird was standing while climbing. My hands were farther back because of the shorter stem and bar sweep and slightly higher bar position. I did not like the feeling. I'm not the kind of rider that rarely gets out of the saddle. The bar ends were OK for that though, but the position on them felt too wide. I also felt like that I was sitting back more on my saddle. Too much so I think, like I could feel the back edge. Maybe I should try a longer stem. I think the 650/100mm bar/stem worked better for me.


My impression is that the short/wide setup works well with bikes that are designed for it and not so much with others.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Curveball said:


> My impression is that the short/wide setup works well with bikes that are designed for it and not so much with others.


So...

Bikes with crap geo need shorter bars+longer stems...

and bikes with good geo need wider bars+shorter stems! ^^

I concur ;-)

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

targnik said:


> So...
> 
> Bikes with crap geo need shorter bars+longer stems...
> 
> ...


I'd be the last person to start calling geo specs "crap". Different bike configurations work for different people and different places.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Curveball said:


> I'd be the last person to start calling geo specs "crap". Different bike configurations work for different people and different places.


I concur? o_0

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

2004' called and they want their thread back.


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

grumpy old biker said:


> So far most positive effects of moving from 630mm to 720mm bar, has been breathability (is that a word?) on climbing.
> 
> .


I think this concept was put out by Richard whathisname from pink bike - it's not true.

The reason it's untrue, or at the very least irrelevant, is that cardiovascular function determines muscular output not respiratory function. Your lungs (once even moderately trained) can keep up with any requirements for oxygen that your body demands, it's your cardiovascular system that is short of capacity and responds to training - both in terms of oxygen delivery to the muscles and delivery of deoxygenated blood to the lungs for re oxygenation.

Your own experience on this front proves the rule as well. It's easy to ride a bike and keep up your performance in spite of a lung infection that has reduced your capacity quite a bit ( it's not comfortable, but it doesn't slow you down appreciably)


----------



## Freebird23103 (Aug 16, 2015)

This thread reminds me of when I used to race Motorcycles, Enduro's in the South East. Some of the riders would cut the bars down a couple inches for better clearance to fit between trees, saplings etc. Nothing worse than smacking your pinkies on trees when racing. 

One of my buddies was asked how much he was removing off his bars, he replied only 1/2 inch each side, any more and his fat a$$ would get stuck between the trees lol


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

pharmaboy said:


> I think this concept was put out by Richard whathisname from pink bike - it's not true.
> 
> The reason it's untrue, or at the very least irrelevant, is that cardiovascular function determines muscular output not respiratory function. Your lungs (once even moderately trained) can keep up with any requirements for oxygen that your body demands, it's your cardiovascular system that is short of capacity and responds to training - both in terms of oxygen delivery to the muscles and delivery of deoxygenated blood to the lungs for re oxygenation.
> 
> Your own experience on this front proves the rule as well. It's easy to ride a bike and keep up your performance in spite of a lung infection that has reduced your capacity quite a bit ( it's not comfortable, but it doesn't slow you down appreciably)


I have not done scientific tests of course.

I refer to feeling when you have narrower grip, it seems not so easy to fill lungs, there is arms that get into way of sides expanding, it might just be a feeling, but with wider grip there is not that feeling.

What is then measurable effect of that, I don't know, but I know placebo makes one faster too 

Poor Asthma day I lack bit of heart beat range from top, around 20 beats lower and I feel it on my legs, soft power kind of, on those days I really feel that compressing feeling with narrow bar.

44" chest and 15" arms, not really bulky, but all that has to reside somewhere, for someone smaller surely there would be less effect. It would be interesting study to really measure effect on different size persons.

Oh I'm slow as snail going uphill, but mass helps go fast downhill 

I also think that bikes geometry has to at least somewhat support short stem and wide bars, at least way that reach is something that fits.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Freebird23103 said:


> This thread reminds me of when I used to race Motorcycles, Enduro's in the South East. Some of the riders would cut the bars down a couple inches for better clearance to fit between trees, saplings etc. Nothing worse than smacking your pinkies on trees when racing.
> 
> One of my buddies was asked how much he was removing off his bars, he replied only 1/2 inch each side, any more and his fat a$$ would get stuck between the trees lol


LOL
And then came hand guards. Smacking your hands on a tree while enduro riding. 
Been there done that.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...qmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=t&ref=pd_sl_4pg0guqiy3_b


----------



## Hooch (Jun 30, 2006)

bike bar width from watching various youtube clips seems to be in the camp of enduro and downhill, wide bars for good control turning. which my 2015 stumpy evo bears out.
were as xc have narrower bars for tight twisty trails used in racing, which my merida 96r has, also a longer stem so weight is more forward for uphill riding at speed.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

grumpy old biker said:


> I have not done scientific tests of course.
> 
> I refer to feeling when you have narrower grip, it seems not so easy to fill lungs, there is arms that get into way of sides expanding, it might just be a feeling, but with wider grip there is not that feeling.
> 
> ...


Seems to me that wide bars and slightly shorter stems can be used on any bike, including old school hardtail bikes which can benefit from less twitchy steering.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> Seems to me that wide bars and slightly shorter stems can be used on any bike, including old school hardtail bikes which can benefit from less twitchy steering.


Of course they can be used, but one issue might be that your knees hit handlebar much easier, it does limit turning radius quite a bit for slow speed stuff. That probably does not happen so much with modern bikes that has enough long top tube to avoid that issue.

It is always a compromise, same way narrow bar is a compromise, you win some, you lose some, then you have to just pick your poison.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

My old bike had too little reach but I still used a 50mm stem and 760mm bar. There was only 1 tight uphill corner where I had to be careful with my knee/bar interface. The benifits far outweighed being a little cramped. The wide bar gave me back some of the space the short stem took. If I get a more XC bike it will have the reach so I can use a short/wide combo as well as a dropper. No point handicapping myself.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> My old bike had too little reach but I still used a 50mm stem and 760mm bar. There was only 1 tight uphill corner where I had to be careful with my knee/bar interface. The benifits far outweighed being a little cramped. The wide bar gave me back some of the space the short stem took. If I get a more XC bike it will have the reach so I can use a short/wide combo as well as a dropper. No point handicapping myself.


Post #3500. A milestone of sorts. Thanks for all your contributions.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I rode my F900 SL Headshok Cannondale today, which has 560mm bars and bar ends. Just fire roads, a little single track, steep and long climbs and descents. The sky didn't fall. In fact, after a little time getting used to it, it felt 'effing great. Very flickable bike. I'm going to put a 650mm bar on it though to try it out. 

Wonder what the next fad in handlebars will be 10 years from now? Maybe it will be like the ski industry; short skis, long skis, then back to short.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I think we are bumping up against the maximum width, but I don't see going back to narrow. Crank length however....


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I remember riser bars going to flat bars, flat bars being cut down real narrow, then bar ends, back to riser bars, and now wide riser bars. It never seems to end.


----------



## Stutto (May 12, 2008)

My lock on grips add 10mm each, do any add less without sacrificing usable space?


Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Curveball said:


> I remember riser bars going to flat bars, flat bars being cut down real narrow, then bar ends, back to riser bars, and now wide riser bars. It never seems to end.


Take one bar and end it.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> I think we are bumping up against the maximum width, but I don't see going back to narrow. Crank length however....


I want to try 180mm cranks next, because at least competitive cyclist fit calculator recommends that length for me. I have had 170 and 175, currently 170, I can spin fast, but might like to test if longer crank would give better endurance.

Many fit guides seem to emphasize importance of correct length cranks and how many use too short.

I haven't read so much about enough wide handlebar, but I think it is also important bit.

Last 1 hour ride started to give me pins and needles to right hand, I really need to sort that out, it was fine for many rides after changing to longer bar, but now happens again.

When I look my hands it looks like that there is too much back sweep on handle bar, hands would like to be in different angle, so outer edge of palm gets too much pressure, going even wider bar with similar sweep might of course help or bar without back sweep.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

grumpy old biker said:


> When I look my hands it looks like that there is too much back sweep on handle bar, hands would like to be in different angle, so outer edge of palm gets too much pressure, going even wider bar with similar sweep might of course help or bar without back sweep.


I tried 810mm wide bars with 9 degree backsweep and it was very uncomfortable. I am tall at 6'4 and I have very wide shoulders and long arms. I think if you have wide shoulders it makes bars with a lot of back sweep uncomfortable, at least in my experience. I found some 810mm bars with 5 degree back sweep and they fell much better. Gave my 9 degree backsweep bars to a friend since they were so uncomfortable.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

grumpy old biker said:


> I want to try 180mm cranks next, because at least competitive cyclist fit calculator recommends that length for me. I have had 170 and 175, currently 170, I can spin fast, but might like to test if longer crank would give better endurance.
> 
> Many fit guides seem to emphasize importance of correct length cranks and how many use too short.
> 
> ...


Have you tried rolling the bars forward? Sounds like the sweep is pointed back at your hips instead of at your shoulders. Personal preference but most people tend toward the sweep pointing at the shoulders.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

dgw2jr said:


> Have you tried rolling the bars forward? Sounds like the sweep is pointed back at your hips instead of at your shoulders. Personal preference but most people tend toward the sweep pointing at the shoulders.


I must try that and see what difference it makes, thanks from the tip!

I just set bar to 0 as there were those lines with numbers printed on front side of bar, so maybe there is improvement to be found, if not I need to find some with less sweep or zero sweep at all.

My shoulders are indeed bit wider than average, I found 720mm to be something that is not even nearly too wide, could of been wider too, but I don't ride very rough downhill so wide is just experiment to get rid of pins and needles.

There is also something that is related to bike's geometry that is causing issue as other bike with identical bar (just tiny bit shorter) is not giving similar issues, despite top tube being lot longer and stem being very long, so weight should be more on arms there. Hopefully rotating bar helps, if not, then need again new handlebar.

Must check on tomorrows ride what difference rotating bar makes.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

grumpy old biker said:


> I must try that and see what difference it makes, thanks from the tip!
> 
> I just set bar to 0 as there were those lines with numbers printed on front side of bar, so maybe there is improvement to be found, if not I need to find some with less sweep or zero sweep at all.
> 
> ...


Try raising the bars or a shorter stem so your back angle is more vertical to take some weight off your hands. Also more padded gloves helps too.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

MikeDee said:


> Try raising the bars or a shorter stem so your back angle is more vertical to take some weight off your hands. Also more padded gloves helps too.


Those I have tried already, 35mm stem and bar as high it can be (20mm rise in bar too), cockpit is really short compared to anything recommended by fit calculators (it is around 440mm from tip of saddle to center of handlebar and I'm over 6ft), also saddle is tilted upwards so that I can easily hover my hands above handlebar.

Usually I'm holding bar with thumbs only as I have bar ends, because normal grip is causing issues, but even that makes same palm area to get pins and needles, I try today rotating bar to see if things improve.

It used to be so that within 2 minutes pins and needles started and that was with long stem that was something like 25 degrees up that came with bike. Only bike that I have had such issue, it is bit weird.

Lowering saddle from what fit calculator recommends seems to help too, also allows to spin faster, but reduces bit of available power on steep sections.

I have also settled with very low front tire pressure as poor XCT shock does much of anything.


----------



## Tihead (Oct 5, 2006)

I'm contributing to major thread topic drift here, but...
I'm ~6'2"/168# and bought a pair of 180 mm cranks for my 29er hardtail last year. Some of my reasoning was to get effectively lower gearing, longer crank = more leverage, but some of it was to match crank length to leg length. Think I'll stick with 175 for my FS bike, to prevent the increase of pedal strikes, but I do like the 180 mm length for my hardtail. Could I honestly tell the difference in going from 180 from 175, not really... but I sleep much better...


grumpy old biker said:


> I want to try 180mm cranks next, because at least competitive cyclist fit calculator recommends that length for me. ...


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I caved in....

I am the #1 proponent of narrow bars, I use 590 on my XC rig...


but...uhhhhh

my fatbike came with 720 risers...and I been riding that thing a TON this year

and I go back to my XC rig and it rides fine and I can thread the narrow trees fine....

and....

and...

I said F***it I love my fatbike and I wonder why so I found a deal on niiice Easton CF risers 685 (not super wide but wider than 590) slapped them on rode the XC around and...

(I love it)

so...this old coot has converted to wide (if you can still say 685 is considered wide)


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> Narrow roadie position bars for mountain biking have been dead for a long time.


only now, today, after three lifetimes on narrow MTB bars...I agree.


----------



## SVO (May 25, 2005)

127.0.0.1 said:


> so...this old coot has converted to wide (if you can still say 685 is considered wide)


"Mountain bike handlebars have got wider over the past decade or so. The common range for a normal bar width has now settled down to between 700mm to 800mm".

Yup, 685 is considered narrow these days. We may be even more cooty than we imagine


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

grumpy old biker said:


> I have also settled with very low front tire pressure as poor XCT shock does much of anything.


As more weight gets shifted to the back of the bike, a bigger spread between front and rear tire pressure only makes sense.

I've changed to a 5psi (almost 20%) difference on my 6" 650b bike, and a 20-25% difference really works on the 29+ bike I've been messing with lately. As long as I'm not somewhere that involves serious sharp edged rock bashing that is, I'd also be increasing pressure on the rear in those situations anyways.

Dunno if my technique has improved or the tire pressure has been improving front end grip, but I'm experiencing less front end sliding than before.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

richde said:


> As more weight gets shifted to the back of the bike, a bigger spread between front and rear tire pressure only makes sense.
> 
> I've changed to a 5psi (almost 20%) difference on my 6" 650b bike, and a 20-25% difference really works on the 29+ bike I've been messing with lately. As long as I'm not somewhere that involves serious sharp edged rock bashing that is, I'd also be increasing pressure on the rear in those situations anyways.
> 
> Dunno if my technique has improved or the tire pressure has been improving front end grip, but I'm experiencing less front end sliding than before.


Based on measured weight distribution it would be quite easy to calculate theoretical difference needed, but then pedaling out of saddle and all other different weight distribution situations tend to change what kind of pressure is needed.

I try to set pressures so that bike goes over crushed stone like if it would float over it, then sometimes need to consider situation when going downhill where running water has removed dirt and revealed some rocks, but for my riding there is not much need to adjust for handling and that makes things easier.

Also running semi-slick at rear helps a lot, no matter what kind of pressures I set, front will have more bite.


----------

