# Easton Monkeylite XC vs RaceFace Next Handlebars



## Eastbaynewb (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm looking at risebars for both. They appear to be pretty much the same in weight. Would one be a better choice than the other?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It's mostly a matter of whether you want the shiny black finish on the 31.8mm NEXT 3/4 bars or the matte black finish on the 31.8mm Easton Monkeylite, if you put them up side by side you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in shape, they look like they came off the same production line and went to a different finishing line. They both seem plenty stiff


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

I agree with the previous post, I've used the RF for the past 3 years for recreational and racing, never a problem. I have Ritchey on my other bike and although I like them, they are more given to flex.


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

i just bought the RF next sl bars. be careful with widths of bars. i see all sorts of printed errors on vendor sites and even some (or sometime misleading as well) bar sites.

i know i like wide bars. 660mm is about the widest you can get in the "light category". sometimes the monkey bars look like they are wide and then they are 630mm or something.

just be aware and check a couple sources for accuracy to see if it's what you want.


mx


----------



## stingray_coach (Jun 27, 2006)

mx_599 said:


> i just bought the RF next sl bars. be careful with widths of bars. i see all sorts of printed errors on vendor sites and even some (or sometime misleading as well) bar sites.
> 
> i know i like wide bars. 660mm is about the widest you can get in the "light category". sometimes the monkey bars look like they are wide and then they are 630mm or something.
> 
> ...


Can you cut carbon bars? My wife has a set of monkey lites and feels like they are too wide...so I am thinking of cutting them to fit better. Wise or no?


----------



## Little Willy (Feb 4, 2005)

if you look further down in this forum, someone recently posted an article from a german magazine about strength of carbon bars and seatposts.

i cant be bothered finding it but i seem to recall the eastons not being rated as highly, though to what level of 'strength' they tested them to might be a moot point for most riding applications


----------



## 40hills (Apr 24, 2006)

*Yes, and Easton even has instructions*



stingray_coach said:


> Can you cut carbon bars? My wife has a set of monkey lites and feels like they are too wide...so I am thinking of cutting them to fit better. Wise or no?


Wise. Somewhere on the Easton website are instructions for cutting carbon bars. Measure 2 or 3 times, then cut carefully :thumbsup:

EDIT: found it... http://www.eastonbike.com/downloadable_files_unprotected/r&d_files/R&D-05-Carbon.pdf


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Something to watch out for with the RF bars as well, there's NEXT XC and NEXT SL bars. The XC bars are wider and a bit heavier and use a shiny black finish with no visible weave, the NEXT SL use a glossy exposed carbon weave and are a bit narrower and lighter.


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

Rockyuphill has a good point. The RF Next SL is only about 24 inches wide, feels a bit too narrow to me. The RF Next XC is close to 26" wide, I prefer it. The Ritchey is also almost 26", I've noticed whenever I see a very light carbon bar advertised if you look closely its usually under 620mm. 

So really its as if most of the bars weigh pretty close to the same per inch, and depending on the overall length is how heavy it is.


----------



## Jerome (Dec 21, 2003)

Another point to be wary of is the rearward bend of each brand. The RF generally are "straighter" (less rear sweep) than the Eastons (5° vs 8° if I remember well). After that, it's a matter of personal preference. I do prefer the Easton bend, which I feel is more comfortable for me, but the best way is to start from what you have/had and love in terms of h/bar shape (rise/sweep/width) and then chose the model that's the closest to that. Either way,these are good choices, although I'm partial to Easton, who offers a 5-year warranty on their carbon handlebars.

Jerome


----------



## stingray_coach (Jun 27, 2006)

40hills said:


> Wise. Somewhere on the Easton website are instructions for cutting carbon bars. Measure 2 or 3 times, then cut carefully :thumbsup:
> 
> EDIT: found it... http://www.eastonbike.com/downloadable_files_unprotected/r&d_files/R&D-05-Carbon.pdf


Thanks Brotha.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Here's the specs from their websites...

*RF Next XC 3/4" risers 31.8mm *

9 deg rearward / 6 degree upward 27" (685mm width) 195gms

*RF Next SL 3/4" risers 31.8mm*

9 deg rearward / 4 deg upward, 26" (660mm width) 170gms

*Easton Monkey Lite XC 20mm rise / 31.8mm bar*

9 deg rearward / 5 deg upward / 27" (685mm wide) 155gms


----------



## Call_me_Al (May 31, 2008)

Little Willy said:


> if you look further down in this forum, someone recently posted an article from a german magazine about strength of carbon bars and seatposts.
> 
> i cant be bothered finding it but i seem to recall the eastons not being rated as highly, though to what level of 'strength' they tested them to might be a moot point for most riding applications


I thought it was an interesting test, so I bookmarked it. Here it is.

In the test, the Easton got a "very good" rating and the RF got a "good" rating.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

I think that German Mag test is a load of rubbish

I remember there was a similar one done saying that nothing could compete with Easton CNT stuff - now everything is better ?!?

Im running EC90 seatpost and EC70 bars both CNT. There incredibly strong - never had a problem.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The fundamental flaw in that test was the 50% overtorqued installation without any reference test for correct installation torque.


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

also the magazine only tested the fatigue life, not the component's yield strength, or torsional ridgidity.


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> Something to watch out for with the RF bars as well, there's NEXT XC and NEXT SL bars. The XC bars are wider and a bit heavier and use a shiny black finish with no visible weave, the NEXT SL use a glossy exposed carbon weave and are a bit narrower and lighter.


it's not even as clearcut as this  you also have the next sl 3/4. this is the one i have that is 660mm. however, i have seen it incorrectly marked as the narrower next sl non-3/4 widths.

bottom line, if you care about widths just make sure you check carefully.

:thumbsup:

mx


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

tolleyman said:


> Rockyuphill has a good point. The RF Next SL is only about 24 inches wide, feels a bit too narrow to me. The RF Next XC is close to 26" wide, I prefer it. The Ritchey is also almost 26", I've noticed whenever I see a very light carbon bar advertised if you look closely its usually under 620mm.
> 
> So really its as if most of the bars weigh pretty close to the same per inch, and depending on the overall length is how heavy it is.


not the 3/4

mx


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> *Easton Monkey Lite XC 20mm rise / 31.8mm bar*
> 
> 9 deg rearward / 5 deg upward / 27" (685mm wide) 155gms


this info from there site is not accurate. they are using the lightest weight combo. they had 660, 685, low 20mm, high 40mm, 25.4, 31.8 all lumped together under the same weight.

mx


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

mx_599 said:


> this info from there site is not accurate. they are using the lightest weight combo. they had 660, 685, low 20mm, high 40mm, 25.4, 31.8 all lumped together under the same weight.
> 
> mx


True, I just weighed the 31.8mm Monkeylite XC I have here (trimmed to 26" width) and it is 162gms. The bastages!


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> True, I just weighed the 31.8mm Monkeylite XC I have here (trimmed to 26" width) and it is 162gms. The bastages!


i am not typically a weight weenie at all. it's just i scrutinized these two brands pretty close because i was trying to build a light mojo. i came up with they both weighed about the same so i went with race face because i like them. i didn't think there was any advantage of the monkey. but i like them both.

also, thet test on the other link seems pretty lame. i have the easton 90 post and it seems fine 

mx


----------



## GiantMartin (Sep 12, 2007)

I've been using Monkeylite EC90 SL's for about a year now and they are the shizznit. I do believe they weigh less then the RF's. Really what it boild down to is what look you are going for, shiny or flat black.


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

We have 2 Race Face Next SL and from what i remember is that Easton bar is a little bit lighter, but we went for looks at that point. I like the look of the carbon weave. I would not suggest the Bontrager Race X Lite as it is more $$ and heavier, and personally looks ugly...

Plus right now jensonusa is having a deal on the rf products, $99 for the handle bar!


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

PimpinD said:


> We have 2 Race Face Next SL and from what i remember is that Easton bar is a little bit lighter, but we went for looks at that point. I like the look of the carbon weave. I would not suggest the Bontrager Race X Lite as it is more $$ and heavier, and personally looks ugly...
> 
> Plus right now jensonusa is having a deal on the rf products, $99 for the handle bar!


there are multiple versions out there. maybe 2008 vs 09?

but the next sl 3/4 is lower rise than the bar you have posted. so i think it is confusing to people trying to select some of these products. it was the same with the various easton models.

mx


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

hmm, very true, none of those are the 3/4 bars...

the bars we have are all 2008

Here is from Race Faces Website:

RF Next Sl 3/4 Low rise

RF Next SL Low Rise


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

PimpinD said:


> hmm, very true, none of those are the 3/4 bars...
> 
> the bars we have are all 2008
> 
> ...


the graphics are different than your photos.

i am not saying this matters at all.

i just know one night while half asleep i was trying to look at all the easton and race face bars to make a choice and i was running into multiple versions and graphics for both brands. it was annoying. probably because i was falling asleep. i was confusing myself. it was probably a mix or 2007, 2008, and maybe newer models?



mx


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

yea, i think the one i nthe picture might be 07? the 2nd bar we have (not photographed) has NEXTSL logo in big writing...

Ill have a scale on monday if u want, i can weigh it?


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

PimpinD said:


> yea, i think the one i nthe picture might be 07? the 2nd bar we have (not photographed) has NEXTSL logo in big writing...
> 
> Ill have a scale on monday if u want, i can weigh it?


i weighed mine already, but it will not hurt if you weigh yours too.

ignore the bread loaf pan and paper, i tared the scale 

*Race Face Next SL 3/4 184 grams*










oops, i guess i didn't tare it










mx


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

so 202grams? that seems like a lot!

lol

I will weight both the bontrager and both RF handle bars when i get a chance...


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

PimpinD said:


> so 202grams? that seems like a lot!
> 
> lol
> 
> I will weight both the bontrager and both RF handle bars when i get a chance...


368-184 = 184 grams

mx


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

haha must have typed the numbers in wrong on the calc.


----------



## Bikeon (Apr 17, 2008)

Race Face propably made differents versions for OEM and for shops. 

Foto: Race Face Next XC Low Riser Carbon 25,4 x 635mm 2008, OEM.


----------



## gearhead313 (Aug 21, 2006)

MonkeyLite SL low rise and call it a day :thumbsup:


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

gearhead313 said:


> MonkeyLite SL low rise and call it a day :thumbsup:


but what is the width on this bar??

mx


----------



## gearhead313 (Aug 21, 2006)

610mm IIRC


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

gearhead313 said:


> 610mm IIRC


which is completely fine, but that is why it is this light. as someone mentioned above, they all weigh close to the same and then it just depends on width how much more weight wil lbe added.

but those are cool...do you feel like they are too narrow?

mx


----------



## gearhead313 (Aug 21, 2006)

well, I went from 550mm wide next SL carbon flat bars (weighed 136g), so 610 feels perfect to me.

I dont think of it as "how much more weight will be added", its the small weight reducing pieces that add up in the end... hence why im almost 22lb on a 5" FS bike!


----------



## PimpinD (May 29, 2008)

4.7 inches.


----------



## gearhead313 (Aug 21, 2006)

dont be a whore..


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

gearhead313 said:


> well, I went from 550mm wide next SL carbon flat bars (weighed 136g), so 610 feels perfect to me.
> 
> I dont think of it as "how much more weight will be added", its the small weight reducing pieces that add up in the end... hence why im almost 22lb on a 5" FS bike!


no, what i meant was that some people want a bar that is a little wider. so the monkey that you posted is very nice and light, but not good for someone who wants wider.

mx


----------



## gearhead313 (Aug 21, 2006)

I think if you are a weight weenie, you'd sacrifice a little width to get a lighter bar... since this is in the weight weenies sections. Bars should also be sized based on your shoulders, not just 'what you like'. If you dont fit certain bars, then you defeat the whole purpose.


----------



## Jerome (Dec 21, 2003)

BTW, I weighted my XC Hi-rise (1.5") Easton Monkeybar in 31.8 diameter and it tipped the scale @ 175 g... 

Jerome


----------



## mx_599 (Dec 10, 2005)

gearhead313 said:


> I think if you are a weight weenie, you'd sacrifice a little width to get a lighter bar... since this is in the weight weenies sections. Bars should also be sized based on your shoulders, not just 'what you like'. If you dont fit certain bars, then you defeat the whole purpose.


good point.

i forgot this was weight weenie. i just get threads in a big blob on a google reader.

mx


----------



## Juanmoretime (Jul 30, 2004)

Well not the most weenie but light. I've been on them for over a year and I find the FSA low riser carbon bars at 63 cm wide and 171 grams on my scale to be the best. At $55 from www.chucksbikes.com its very hard to beat the gram per dollar value.


----------

