# Anyone else not like wide bars?



## Teufelhunde (May 19, 2007)

Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


----------



## Taildragger (Mar 13, 2005)

I'm not gonna comment....


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

What's considered wide now...like 810mm?


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Uncut. All my bikes. Uncut. 

The last bar I cut felt like the most emasculating thing I have ever done. HUGE mistake. I totally castrated an otherwise perfect 30mm rise 800mm SixC bar. I will never make that mistake again in this lifetime. Or the next. 

Thankfully I was able to sell it with that bike. 

800mm is starting to feel a little narrow. I am going 820 with my next bar.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

What do you consider wide? Anything narrower than 720 belongs on a hybrid.

Edit: I am told that this comment "narrow-minded." If stating my personal opinion, an experience that is agreed upon by a near-unanimous experience from my peers, then I guess I am being narrow-minded when I say that you should vaccinate your kids and the Earth is not a flat disk.


----------



## Teufelhunde (May 19, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> What do you consider wide? Anything narrower than 720 belongs on a hybrid.


My Timberjack has 800 mm bars and just seem too big to me.....don't know, maybe something with more back sweep would make them seem narrower to me.......


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

I use 680mm, tried some uncut 780 bars and it was an awful experience.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

800 is quite wide. Seems like the sweet spot is around 740-780 for most folks. if you are close to average hieght/ proportions on a modern mtb and you think you need bars that are narrower than that, there's a good chance something. Is amiss.


----------



## SCxXxMTB (Apr 20, 2017)

Bike came with 780, felt fine. Swapped in new bar that was stock 820 and it was just silly and hazardous. Cut it down to 800 and it feels real good. Just depends on what you want.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2019)

It all depends on the trails you’re riding...do you have trees? Are you riding single track? I’m running 740mm bars, and I can’t see myself ever wanting wider bars if I’m riding Where I do. It’s all personal preference.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

I took the bars and stem off and just steer with the fork crown. Let's me get more aero.

Like this:


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2019)

^^^in that terrain you could run 1000mm bars


----------



## PJJ205 (Aug 9, 2018)

I just went from 780's to 800's. I laughed when I put them on because they looked so ridiculously huge. A few hours later I went on to clip a tree with them and landed in a rock garden, leading to a nice slice on my leg that still hasn't healed after just about a month now. I do not regret the switch to wider bars at all... It feels so much more comfortable and controllable! You just have to watch the trail a little closer when things get tight. No ragrets.


----------



## krankie (Feb 22, 2019)

I welded extension on my bars reaching 990mm and it's still too narrow....


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Bike frame geometry is designed with an intended bar width and stem length. And bars are tuned to flex around that width. Deviate drastically from what was intended and you will probably end up with a harsh riding bike that steers weird.

I've built some frames, and i have mtbs that span 2 decades of design progression. I don't like <720mm bars cuz they're too narrow and awkward, or 800 or so bars because they're too wide and uncomfortable. (and they make me crash my shoulders in to trees, for some reason). Within those limits it's an interaction between trail/wheel flop/ and bar-stem lever.... it depends on the bike.

I've seen several family-friends do horrible drastic things with bar/stem set up, complain about the consequences, and then brag about their ingenuity. Don't do that.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

My wife's are sawed down to the point where there is barely room for small-size grips, shifter and brake clamp.

I'm currently on a drop-bar kick. 440 mm wide.


----------



## krankie (Feb 22, 2019)

^^^lol^^^


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

krankie said:


> I welded extension on my bars reaching 990mm and it's still too narrow....


Right?


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

krankie said:


> ^^^lol^^^


I got her some Jones Bars too, but the amount of complaining increased even more.

My kid just badgered me into ordering 800mm carbone bars for him. Spoiled extremist.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

I like bars that fit. Going from 600 something to 740 was an eye opening experience, its impossible to go back. Always thought the 740's could be a bit wider.

I got 800 bars and tried them out for awhile but they were too wide and gave me wrist pain. I rode around with the grips moved inwards and found 760-780 to be my range.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

Twenty posts and no one has specified how long their bull-bar extenders are.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2019)

^^^whats a “bull bar extender”???


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

griz said:


> ^^^whats a "bull bar extender"???


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Like the 800's on my singlespeed.

Thought the 820's were a tad wide on the Hightower....yet I have adjusted to them. 

Then again, I was running 710/720's back in 2002.

Today anything narrower than 780 just feels wrong.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I love the wider position and increased control. When you go down rough or technical terrain, it's much easier to keep your wheel going straight, rather than the rocks making your wheel turn, jamming, and causing you to endo. That is one of the main advantage IMO.

Me and my semi-wide bars during a cyclocross race on Saturday! 780mm


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Jayem said:


> I love the wider position and increased control. When you go down rough or technical terrain, it's much easier to keep your wheel going straight, rather than the rocks making your wheel turn, jamming, and causing you to endo. That is one of the main advantage IMO.
> 
> Me and my semi-wide bars during a cyclocross race on Saturday! 780mm


The other dude's bar is laughable. He looks like he is on a kid's bike. Or maybe a folding bike.


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

griz said:


> ^^^in that terrain you could run 1000mm bars


Lol


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

mtnbkrmike said:


> The other dude's bar is laughable. He looks like he is on a kid's bike. Or maybe a folding bike.


Go beyond looking at his bars. He's on a 1993'sh bike. Looks like he's even with Jay on his high tech phatty.  What Jay didn't tell us was this was the last corner before the finish line.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

750-760 is what feels best for me but I am smaller at 5'6, tried 780 and it was just a bit too wide for my liking. 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk


----------



## driver bob (Oct 12, 2005)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I am going 820 with my next bar.


I bought 820mm bars two years ago with the intention of riding for a bit and then taking off mm until I was comfortable. Still haven't cut them down though I might this winter.

I like the extra leverage from them on my 130mm trail bike though it does get a bit tight through some tree sections of my local trails. If I don't hit the line right I'm grazing knuckles on trees.

My rigid single speed felt weird with 820mm on them, down to 780mm on that bike and they feel just about perfect for me.

Anything less than 780mm just feels really narrow and twitchy now... and BITD if a bar was over 700mm it felt wide !!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

griz said:


> It all depends on the trails you're riding...do you have trees? Are you riding single track? I'm running 740mm bars, and I can't see myself ever wanting wider bars if I'm riding Where I do. It's all personal preference.


This. 820 would be ridiculous around here on some of the trails. Maybe some are running 800s but they probably stick to the flow trails. I'm actually running 700s and I still managed to clip trees a lot, though that's more due to I pick a lot of lines close to trees, but some spots are pretty tight and you can often see where people clip trees. I've got a couple of new bars and I'll try going wider but not too wide. At some point, the ratio of my arms being wide vs forward feels off. And to those saying XXX just feels wrong, of course it does if that's not what you're use to.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

I had 820mm, felt good but hard to keep away from trees. 

Cut them to 760, but moved my brake levers against the grips so my hands could be at the edges of the bar. Most people lose 20mm on each side by gripping in the middle of the grip. The guy next to Jayem is giving up at least 30mm on each side. There's no need for this. Also my brain now knows exactly how wide my bike is. Why don't more riders do this? no idea.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

I’m not thrilled with bars that exceed 730mm or so. There is a lot of tight single track where I live/ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

edubfromktown said:


> I'm not thrilled with bars that exceed 730mm or so. There is a lot of tight single track where I live/ride.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hear people say this, but I'd really like to see the videos of it. I have to wonder if it's really an issue, or whether it's a perception thing like when trails "drop off" on one side and that freaks the person out, vs. doesn't affect other people. We have lots of tight trails here, especially in the winter, where you have to angle your bars a little sideways as you ride to fit them through or lean to one side. It's part of the fun and challenge. The narrower the bar, the more that will go wrong when you do contact, since you'll have less leverage to correct.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Go beyond looking at his bars. He's on a 1993'sh bike. Looks like he's even with Jay on his high tech phatty.  What Jay didn't tell us was this was the last corner before the finish line.


Both 26" bikes...so basically the exact same thing.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I have 800s on all my bikes. I ride plenty of heavily treed trails throughout western Canada. I highly doubt anyone is riding more densely treed trails. I have learned exactly what I can get through at speed, and what I have to slow down for. I use the “swim” method to navigate through the super tight areas. 

The very slight inconvenience is a small price to pay. To each his own though. 

For those running longer bars who are thinking of cutting them, just make sure that’s what you really want. You might be surprised to find that you end up regretting it after you cut them. Try moving your grips and levers inboard, leaving your bar intact, or borrow a cheap aluminum bar from your LBS (in whatever shorter width you wish) to try before potentially destroying an expensive bar. 

For me, the very infrequent inconvenience is well worth the benefits of the longer bars, including (but not limited to) the significantly increased control in the super techy, rooty, rocky chunk at speed. Wider bars do nothing on flow trails, which was mentioned more than once above. It’s in the jank where they shine.

I also still “row” up super loose steep pitches (the technique we all learned when we first started out). I find that the wider bars provide a lot more leverage to power up the really tough stuff. There are other advantages too but like I said, to each his own. No skin off my back if you want to cut them.

EDIT: whatever you do, do not be swayed by anyone's advice on this, including mine. Each of us is different anatomically. Find what works for you, but try not to destroy any perfectly good bars in the process.


----------



## Trinimon (Aug 6, 2019)

I had a 680 on a 90mm stem on an older bike. When I went to a 50mm stem, that 680 felt way too twitchy. Upgraded bikes and the new one came with a 780 and a 60mm stem. It felt way too sluggish so I slid the saddle back and added a 50mm stem. Much better but still a bit more slow response. Dropped to a 35mm stem and installed a 740 bar I had kicking around. Very fast response, felt like my old BMX handing, maybe a bit more twitchy than I'm used to from having ridden the 780 for a while. I think 760 would be my sweet spot. Might break out the pipe cutter this wknd.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

760mm is my sweet spot. Wider I have found I clip trees more frequently. Narrower and it is a bit twitcher then I want.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

All of my current bikes are 10 year-old XC geometry hardtails and I find that 710mm bars and 90-100mm stems are about perfect for my terrain and riding style. That was a big change from the sub-600mm bars and 150mm stems I used to ride back in the 80's and 90's. I regularly demo bikes with wider bars and they make some sense on newer bikes, but they still feel weird to me.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

There isn't anything wrong with trimming the bars down.

But, what don't you like about them? Just a generic "I don't like it" or is there a reason. You make a complaint but with no apparent reason.

How much are you planning to cut off each end?

Depending on what you are trying to mimic, suggest taking it in small increments. Maybe 1/2" per side at a time.

The mountain bike bars on one of my bikes is I think 1/2" wider than my dirt bike bars that I'd always cut down. I think my dirt bike is 30.5 or 31". Probably came 32" wide new but it's been too many years to remember. ha

If too wide because they are uncomfortable because of your wing span or stem length, cut away. If you ride tight trails all the time where bars clip trees, probably need to trim.
If they are too wide because they are simly wider than another pair, maybe not the best reason to cut 'em down.


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

I was running the stock bars on my Hightower V2 and found them wide and constantly found myself gripping on the inner most part of the grips to the point that the shifter and dropper post lever were constantly hitting my thumb.

So I finally cut the bars down to 760 and am happy with that width. 

I also am somewhat small. And ride some tight terrain. I don't find them sketchy at all though will admit that wider has a certain stability to it. Within some range it's personal preference based on what you like and what you are riding most often.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

It does take a few rides to get used to a change in bar width so if you just got the 800s then give it a little time. I previously used 760mm, got new 800s and felt they were too wide, cut them down to 780mm. Now I feel like the 800mm would have been okay.

Your ideal width will also vary depending on how broad your shoulders are. The OP's bio says he lives in Spring Valley, AZ, so he probably has some trees but not very tightly spaced. He also needs shoulder surgery so bad shoulder joints might be a factor.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

If you have a 700mm bar and don't clip trees and adding 3/4" to each side suddenly turns every ride into a disaster, it's not the handlebar's fault. There are lots of tight tree gates where I ride and 760s don't slow me down.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

720mm is wide to me...hahahahah. I don't see how you can ride where I am with these huge bars, you will clip trees. I could probably go up to 740.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Jayem said:


> I hear people say this, but I'd really like to see the videos of it. I have to wonder if it's really an issue, or whether it's a perception thing like when trails "drop off" on one side and that freaks the person out, vs. doesn't affect other people. We have lots of tight trails here, especially in the winter, where you have to angle your bars a little sideways as you ride to fit them through or lean to one side. It's part of the fun and challenge. The narrower the bar, the more that will go wrong when you do contact, since you'll have less leverage to correct.


Wider bars are definitely more confidence inspiring in that they provide more control. Newer frame geometries with very short stems warrant use of wider bars. I'm old school and don't mind a less aggressive geometry with somewhat longer stem length (60-90mm maybe...).

Even with ~730mm bars I have my brake levers in an inch or so from where the handlebar grips start. If I didn't, I would smash my pinkies on occasion for sure due to narrow tree lined trails, bridge railings, etc. Some of my friends with slightly wider bars have to stop at bridges and walk their bike across with the front wheel in the air.


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

Anything over 750/760 is just too wide for me. 720 is about the smallest I'd ever want. 

I always post this, but I'm laughingly amazed mountain bikes "need" bars that are wider than MX bars.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

edubfromktown said:


> Even with ~730mm bars I have my brake levers in an inch or so from where the handlebar grips start.


I thought this was how everyone set up their brake levers. Install grips, set lever so your index finger can wrap around the hooked end of the lever, angle down until just right, cinch bolt. Duplicate spacing and angle on the other side. 1" is a great starting point for average sized hands.


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

mack_turtle said:


> I thought this was how everyone set up their brake levers. Install grips, set lever so your index finger can wrap around the hooked end of the lever, angle down until just right, cinch bolt. Duplicate spacing and angle on the other side. 1" is a great starting point for average sized hands.


Yeah, where the levers are is irrelevent compared to the bar width. The levers (and shifter(s) will be where they need to be to work with your hand, bar width doesn't matter!


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

Jayem said:


> Me and my semi-wide bars during a cyclocross race on Saturday! 780mm
> 
> View attachment 1284921


Where's the cyclocross!?!


----------



## be1 (Sep 4, 2013)

after riding bars in the mid 700's for awhile now i rode some oldschool about 600 wide - the 600's felt like i would crash at any moment. lack of control - jittery.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

690 and 700 on two bikes. Road/gravel 420.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Wide bars suck, they made bar ends obsolete


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Wider bars do nothing on flow trails, which was mentioned more than once above. It's in the jank where they shine.


At least around me, the flow trails (and pretty sure everywhere) are a lot wider than the straight up more natural singletrack, so on flow trails, your bars could be 1000+ without having to worry about clipping trees. I enjoy riding flow trails but more prefer tight singletrack over those wide highways.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I like 780 for trail riding. Wide enough to open the lungs and narrow enough for tight singletrack.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Jayem said:


> Both 26" bikes...so basically the exact same thing.


Lol
Basically, mmmmm..mmmmm.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

No wide bars for you in Australia. Not sure why these particular bikes were picked out and not every other bike out there. So do they have handlebar width police?:yawn:

https://www.productsafety.gov.au/recall/giant-bicycle-co-pty-ltd-various-giant-and-liv-bicycles


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chazpat said:


> At least around me, the flow trails (and pretty sure everywhere) are a lot wider than the straight up more natural singletrack, so on flow trails, your bars could be 1000+ without having to worry about clipping trees. I enjoy riding flow trails but more prefer tight singletrack over those wide highways.


Well, wide bars help with leverage and pedaling to get speed for jumps on flow trails and they help you keep the wheel straight when you land, or allow you to land a little more off-center/on a hip/etc. and maintain control...just like everywhere else


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

I run 580mm anything wider hurts my wrist and rotator cuffs....


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

DethWshBkr said:


> Where's the cyclocross!?!


Right here. My first cyclcross race ever. Raced sport, but they launched sport, beginner and a few other classes all together. I initially pulled ahead and had the lead, but blew out the first corner on the slippery grass (pictured), ending up 180 degrees to where I wanted to be. Luckily, a steep hike-a-bike uphill right after limited how far people got ahead of me, so I was able to make it up a bit and pull off 4th place.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

DethWshBkr said:


> Where's the cyclocross!?!


Twenty miles ahead.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Jayem said:


> Right here. My first cyclcross race ever. Raced sport, but they launched sport, beginner and a few other classes all together. I initially pulled ahead and had the lead, but blew out the first corner on the slippery grass (pictured), ending up 180 degrees to where I wanted to be. Luckily, a steep hike-a-bike uphill right after limited how far people got ahead of me, so I was able to make it up a bit and pull off 4th place.


I think we can all agree that the real story here is the pants.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Wider bars do nothing on flow trails, which was mentioned more than once above. It's in the jank where they shine.





Jayem said:


> Well, wide bars help with leverage and pedaling to get speed for jumps on flow trails and they help you keep the wheel straight when you land, or allow you to land a little more off-center/on a hip/etc. and maintain control...just like everywhere else


I think you meant to quote mike, I wasn't the one that said wide bars aren't useful on flow trails, I just said there is plenty of room for them.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I think we can all agree that the real story here is the pants.


Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.

That's a pretty funny picture, pants and the 180, Jayem. You look confused.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chazpat said:


> Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.
> 
> That's a pretty funny picture, pants and the 180, Jayem. You look confused.


At least I didn't get shot down in flames...

The pants are always the real story. Now I too can walk through airports in total comfort.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Jayem said:


> At least I didn't get shot down in flames...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

And we wonder why this sport is such a sausage-fest...haha


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Teufelhunde said:


> Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


If you were on the right side of the law, you wouldn't be in handcuffs and require narrow bars...

But seriously, with my arm length suited to passing a hooter across a room without an extenda-roach, bar width shall be a minimum of 800mm, per the Uniform Bicycle Code.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Jayem said:


> And we wonder why this sport is such a sausage-fest...haha


I was trying to decide where to haul me, my 800 mm barred behemoth and my little posse this long weekend. Nelson BC... Home of BC/DC, Robbie Bourdon, Kurt Sorge and a million other MTB icons... Within a few hours striking distance... Hmmm....

...and I bet I won't clip a single tree all weekend.


----------



## SoDakSooner (Nov 23, 2005)

Had 660's on my old bike, old Easton Monkeylite. The stock bars on my Mach 5.5 are 760's. I like so far but we have a few tight trees on one of the trails we ride that are like 750 wide. Fun little adventure at 15 mph...lol.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

I have 760 on one bike, and 780 on another (Unit), I really can't tell the difference, but definitely wide bars for me. We don't have many trees in SoCal trails.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Jayem said:


> And we wonder why this sport is such a (sweet) sausage-fest...haha


What width Handlebar works for this bike? May enter the Sugarcane 200 in January.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

There is no one bar fits all. Shoulder width, arm length, torso length, ETT, frame size all play a role not to mention any sort of wrist or hand issues. Older style frames are intended to be run with a longer stem and more narrow bar while more progressive geometry will likely have a shorter stem and wider bar. I used to ride with a 680mm bar, which was never wide enough, and my hands would be half-off the grip. I used a 720mm bar after that and it was better. I've had 750 and 760 bars on the fat bikes, both felt good the 760 stayed on the fatty. The 750 moved to my older style skinny tire bike, but I've been using a 740 17deg Salsa Bend 2 bar and my wrists have never felt better. The bar feels like it increased the reach so I also went to a 90mm stem from a 100. It's a work in progress but I'll never go smaller than 740 now.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

dbhammercycle said:


> ...so I also went to a 90mm stem from a 100.


:eekster:


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

my bike came stock with a 760 but it was hard to wrestle the bike up stairs and through a bit of hallway into my bike room.

i took the raceface 725 off of my hardtail, put the hardtail's stock 700 (?) back on and used the 760 for a physical therapy tool while i was recovering from an injury.

now, i think i want 740-745 on the dualie, as my hands just seem to want to be a little farther out on the bar.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2019)

shekky said:


> my bike came stock with a 760 but it was hard to wrestle the bike up stairs and through a bit of hallway into my bike room.
> 
> i took the raceface 725 off of my hardtail, put the hardtail's stock 700 (?) back on and used the 760 for a physical therapy tool while i was recovering from an injury.
> 
> now, i think i want 740-745 on the dualie, as my hands just seem to want to be a little farther out on the bar.


740mm is where it's at


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

My latest bike came with 800mm RaceFace bars. Too wide, I am very used to 760mm. When I removed the grips, I was thrilled to find that the bars were pre-marked on each end for the width you wanted them to be, so for 760, I just cut at the 760 mark on each end. Pretty cool. No way to mis-measure.

BTW, if you ever cut bars, seatposts or fork steerers, you should get yourself one of these (or the Park equivalent for 3x the price):  https://www.amazon.com/CyclingDeal-Bicycle-Mountain-Steerer-Guider/dp/B006WRWA26/ref=sr_1_2

Also, file the sharp edges off the end of the bars after you cut them, inside and out, especially if you use grips with soft ends.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

dbhammercycle said:


> There is no one bar fits all. Shoulder width, arm length, torso length, ETT, frame size all play a role not to mention any sort of wrist or hand issues. Older style frames are intended to be run with a longer stem and more narrow bar while more progressive geometry will likely have a shorter stem and wider bar. I used to ride with a 680mm bar, which was never wide enough, and my hands would be half-off the grip. I used a 720mm bar after that and it was better. I've had 750 and 760 bars on the fat bikes, both felt good the 760 stayed on the fatty. The 750 moved to my older style skinny tire bike, but I've been using a 740 17deg Salsa Bend 2 bar and my wrists have never felt better. The bar feels like it increased the reach so I also went to a 90mm stem from a 100. It's a work in progress but I'll never go smaller than 740 now.


Did it really take 72 posts for this to be said (posted by someone who skimmed through most of the thread, but saw more than a few "absolutes of bar width" being posted.

And, why do people think a wider bar gives more control?


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

BTW, grips come in differing lengths. I use one finger brake levers, and I can't have my hands all the way out to the end of my grips anyway. You can use a narrower bar and shorter grips and end up with your hands the same width apart as a wider bar and longer grips.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

robbnj said:


> And, why do people think a wider bar gives more control?


Depends on the difference. 760 vs. 780 probably not noticeable in control.
760 vs. whatever they were in year 2000 offers additional control, giving the same speed and trail condition.

My two bikes are different by I think 20mm (can't remember for sure). I feel a difference in handling due to one having a shorter stem of 10mm, and different fork offset, but as far as downhill handling because of the width differences, I don't.

In the case of this thread, we were only offered "wider bars" without a reference dimension.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

honkinunit said:


> BTW, if you ever cut bars, seatposts or fork steerers, you should get yourself one of these (or the Park equivalent for 3x the price): https://www.amazon.com/CyclingDeal-Bicycle-Mountain-Steerer-Guider/dp/B006WRWA26/ref=sr_1_2


That is pretty friggn neato!


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

I went from 670mm bars to 800 mm bars last year. I didn't think I'd like them and had intentions to cut them down. I ended up loving the wide bars and now I have no intentions of cutting them down. Love the wide bars!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

robbnj said:


> And, why do people think a wider bar gives more control?


Simple physics. Control is making the bike go where I want it to. The longer the lever arm, the better I can make the front wheel do just that.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> And, why do people think a wider bar gives more control?


Think of it as a circle. With a wider bar, your circle has a lot wider diameter than a small circle. So if you move your hands 2" along that circle, you've moved a smaller degree around the circle than if you moved two inches on a smaller circle. So you can fine tune easier. But, requiring further movement to get the same degree (or angle), the steering is slower. Narrow bars make the steering twitchy, you can be turning your hands back and forth trying to get the angle right while with wider bars, it's easier to hit the proper angle.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Regarding the above two posts, I understand the physics of longer lever versus shorter lever. (The shorter the lever, the faster the change on what that lever is attached to). I also understand that longer does NOT mean "more control", and neither does shorter. It's situation-dependent.

But, there is also the factor of the human arms (and the body they are attached to) moving that lever. The wider the bar, the more you have to move your upper body to swing that bigger arc. Easier for taller people than shorter people. I personally find there is a natural position for where my arms want to be. With my hands too close together, I am uncomfortable. Too far apart, uncomfortable. Simple ergonomics. (From bench presses and pushups, to fighting with a bo staff, to lifting a bag of cement).

Wit the absolutes that "a bar of XXXmm is the RIGHT size", I wonder if there are people who take it to heart and end up riding with discomfort because it's what they have been told by the "experts" to do.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

robbnj said:


> Simple ergonomics. (From bench presses and pushups, to fighting with a bo staff, to lifting a bag of cement).
> 
> Wit the absolutes that "a bar of XXXmm is the RIGHT size", I wonder if there are people who take it to heart and end up riding with discomfort because it's what they have been told by the "experts" to do.


Well, I'd say the converse of that is that the idea of having your bars based on your shoulder width is BS and 99% of people will feel pushups are easier when they take a wide stance, again, leverage. That won't build muscles the best, so if you do happen to build up a certain set of muscles, that exercise will seem easier, but that doesn't really mean it's optimal or easier for everyone. If you are having discomfort, by all means, change some things around, there are lots of variables with sweep, height, width, position, brake lever angle and reach, etc.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Regarding the above two posts, I understand the physics of longer lever versus shorter lever. (The shorter the lever, the faster the change on what that lever is attached to). I also understand that longer does NOT mean "more control", and neither does shorter. It's situation-dependent.
> 
> But, there is also the factor of the human arms (and the body they are attached to) moving that lever. The wider the bar, the more you have to move your upper body to swing that bigger arc. Easier for taller people than shorter people. I personally find there is a natural position for where my arms want to be. With my hands too close together, I am uncomfortable. Too far apart, uncomfortable. Simple ergonomics. (From bench presses and pushups, to fighting with a bo staff, to lifting a bag of cement).
> 
> Wit the absolutes that "a bar of XXXmm is the RIGHT size", I wonder if there are people who take it to heart and end up riding with discomfort because it's what they have been told by the "experts" to do.


If you're short and riding a production bike (especially something like a long travel 29er) the handlebars are only the tip of the iceberg. Some stuff just can't work even though you can buy it at a shop.

For the rest of us, the handlebars are just one lever in a series that connects our hands to the front tire. If you're varying that length drastically... something is wrong. Or at least poorly optimized.

If you fall outside the 740-800mm range it's indicative of poor setup. Everyone wants to think they're special, but we're not.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

robbnj said:


> Regarding the above two posts, I understand the physics of longer lever versus shorter lever. (The shorter the lever, the faster the change on what that lever is attached to). I also understand that longer does NOT mean "more control", and neither does shorter. It's situation-dependent.
> 
> But, there is also the factor of the human arms (and the body they are attached to) moving that lever. The wider the bar, the more you have to move your upper body to swing that bigger arc. Easier for taller people than shorter people. I personally find there is a natural position for where my arms want to be. With my hands too close together, I am uncomfortable. Too far apart, uncomfortable. Simple ergonomics. (From bench presses and pushups, to fighting with a bo staff, to lifting a bag of cement).
> 
> Wit the absolutes that "a bar of XXXmm is the RIGHT size", I wonder if there are people who take it to heart and end up riding with discomfort because it's what they have been told by the "experts" to do.


And I wonder whether you have any idea what you are talking about.

Go ride a legit black or double black with an 800mm bar. Then ride it with a 640mm bar. Decide for yourself whether you have more control with the former.

But as I said in post #36 above, "whatever you do, do not be swayed by anyone's advice on this, including mine. Each of us is different anatomically. Find what works for you, but try not to destroy any perfectly good bars in the process."

I get the impression you just want to argue.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

DethWshBkr said:


> Yeah, where the levers are is irrelevent compared to the bar width. The levers (and shifter(s) will be where they need to be to work with your hand, bar width doesn't matter!


I have the brake levers against the grips on my other bikes with narrower bars. My point is that if I did the same on wider bars, I would smash my fingers...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Why, just the other day I was in the supermarket fighting with a bo staff and I thought to myself, "This would be so much better if my hands were a little further apart. Hey look, eggs are on sale!"


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

I think ya'll are overlooking the most important part.

Wider bars will make you look like you are always attacking something. Intimidating to all people you come face to face with.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

robbnj said:


> Regarding the above two posts, I understand the physics of longer lever versus shorter lever. (The shorter the lever, the faster the change on what that lever is attached to). I also understand that longer does NOT mean "more control", and neither does shorter. It's situation-dependent.
> 
> But, there is also the factor of the human arms (and the body they are attached to) moving that lever. The wider the bar, the more you have to move your upper body to swing that bigger arc. Easier for taller people than shorter people. I personally find there is a natural position for where my arms want to be. With my hands too close together, I am uncomfortable. Too far apart, uncomfortable. Simple ergonomics. (From bench presses and pushups, to fighting with a bo staff, to lifting a bag of cement).
> 
> Wit the absolutes that "a bar of XXXmm is the RIGHT size", I wonder if there are people who take it to heart and end up riding with discomfort because it's what they have been told by the "experts" to do.


But, we have a lot of "experts" among us. And I have to ask, what is "fighting with a bo staff"?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> But, we have a lot of "experts" among us. And I have to ask, what is "fighting with a bo staff"?


It's what you do if you've dropped your nunchakus and can't find your tonfas. Doesn't everyone do this?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

scottzg said:


> If you fall outside the 740-800mm range it's indicative of poor setup.


LOL!!

Yes, using equipment that fits you is clearly poor setup.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Shayne said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Yes, using equipment that fits you is clearly poor setup.


I think the point that is being missed is that while your 2003 mountain bike with it's 100mm or longer stem and bars may "fit you", the initial reaction when getting on a modern bike with shorter stem and wider bars needs to be questioned, give it a little time and see. The range of "narrow to wide" is now wider on a modern bike. Just like on an older bike with longer stem, the range was narrower, so arbitrarily, back in the day a 720 setup was "wide" and at the upper limit of riders with large dimension body parts. Now, with size of the stem, that limit has moved outward significantly. Additionally, now there are a lot of stems available less than 50mm, so your first inclination to cut your bars may not be the best idea, it may be to shorten the stem down.

If you really need narrower, then go for it and cut them down. MTBs have evolved to have wider bars and this "fits" people just like the narrower-long-stem setups did before, but gives handling advantages. So as long as people are aware of this, no problem. At least give the wider setup a chance, and then think real hard about what is the right way forward, it may not mean cutting it down or may mean a combination of things, to achieve the correct balance for you.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Go ride a legit black or double black with an 800mm bar. Then ride it with a 640mm bar. Decide for yourself whether you have more control with the former.


To the contrary, stand and hammer the pedals for a long solid effort, and decide which feels better.

640 is a touch extreme, especially on the long bikes of today. But I honestly cannot fathom having a consistent strong pedal stroke with my hands 80cm apart.

Though, it may be too much time spent in drops on my part.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Shayne said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Yes, using equipment that fits you is clearly poor setup.


Is this you?








But seriously, let's not talk about nonsense from the 90s. The narrow bars work because the whole bike is screwy.


----------



## jan_kaspar (Oct 16, 2012)

Do a push-up with dumbbells and your body will tell you what it wants. Measure the distance you like the best. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

jan_kaspar said:


> Do a push-up with dumbbells and your body will tell you what it wants. Measure the distance you like the best.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Who needs dumbbells. If using this technique, a simple push-up on the floor is the same thing.


----------



## jan_kaspar (Oct 16, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Who needs dumbbells. If using this technique, a simple push-up on the floor is the same thing.


Either way works, though the dumbbells are a little better of a simulation. Flat handed pushups hurt my wrists, so I'd be worried that my hand positioning would be slightly different as a result of favoring my wrists.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

knutso said:


> To the contrary, stand and hammer the pedals for a long solid effort, and decide which feels better.
> 
> 640 is a touch extreme, especially on the long bikes of today. But I honestly cannot fathom having a consistent strong pedal stroke with my hands 80cm apart.
> 
> Though, it may be too much time spent in drops on my part.


Haha...it actually feels better to sprint out of the saddle on my road bike with its super narrow drop bar. The bar on my MTB's are 760...it feels real awkward with my hands so far apart.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Narrow minded about wide bars is no way to go through life son.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

My 760s are staring to feel narrow.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

SS Hack said:


> My 760s are staring to feel narrow.


You can go ahead an uncut them if you need them wider.
Duh


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Narrow minded about wide bars is no way to go through life son.


/snort...


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

This was my progression over the past 10 years:

660 mm bars, 100mm stem: Felt fine, didn't think too hard about the impact of wider bars/shorter stem
740 mm bars, 70mm stem: Tried this first on a demo bike. It was definitely a better setup than what I had previously
760 mm bars, 50mm stem: Another improvement over the previous setup
785 mm bars, 50mm stem: I thought this was going to be a little too wide, but it seemed to provide a bit more control than the 760mm bars. It may have caused some shoulder pain over time.
800 mm bars, 50mm stem: Definitely too wide. My upper body felt locked in place with this set up.
Cut the 800mm bars down to 775mm, 50mm stem: Feels just right. As a plus, shortening the bars speeds up the steering of my Ibis HD4 just the right amount.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

It is as much about your body as the bike, do a bunch of push-ups, until you start to have to actually work to do them. You will naturally put your hands in the position that is most comfortable for you, and gives you the best leverage. Measure that width to the outside of your hands. Add 20mm and that will be the correct bar width to start for average trail riding. Tight/high speed XC riding maybe 50mm less, enduro and downhill maybe 50mm wider. Downhill you might want to go even wider if it doesn't feel bad to you.

For me the measurement was 680mm so I run 700mm bars on my trail bike, and 740mm bars on my enduro bike. I tried 800mm bars and they didn't feel real bad, but because of old shoulder injuries, they would cause pain on longer rides.

One thing to remember, if your bike already is the right setup for your balance and you change to wider bars, you will need a shorter stem to keep the same hip to shoulder alignment and front to back weight distribution.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

I run 825mm Deity's with a 40mm stem. But, I'm 6' tall and ride a lot of downhill. I don't necessarily turn my handlebars when cornering, I lean the bike and countersteer to corner. The 825's give great leverage while providing extra stability at speed. 

My opinion is that every bike and every setup is made to accomplish specific goals for specific riders. My 1986 Trek 850 has 675mm bars and the equivalent of a 60mm stem. Its super sketchy on a trail, but it works great with fenders to ride around town. I personally think most XC guys are running way too long of bars and they should be around 700-720mm, but if they want longer or shorter bars who am I to tell them otherwise? If you want to run 450mm bars on your fixie to deliver pizza's, why should I tell you to run anything else? I am just happy you are all out riding your bikes.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Thanks to this thread, I have finally removed the bar ends and moved my grips out. Now I can take full advantage of every one of the 620 millimeters my bar has to offer. Don't worry, it makes up for its shortness with a 120 millimeter stem.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

Thustlewhumber said:


> If you want to run 450mm bars on your fixie to deliver pizza's, why should I tell you to run anything else? I am just happy you are all out riding your bikes.


I'm starting to see guys with extra large bars with fixies downtown , no kidding !
I wonder how they pass through cars......


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Thanks to this thread, I have finally removed the bar ends and moved my grips out. Now I can take full advantage of every one of the 620 millimeters my bar has to offer. Don't worry, it makes up for its shortness with a 120 millimeter stem.


My head asplode!


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

armii said:


> It is as much about your body as the bike, do a bunch of push-ups, until you start to have to actually work to do them. You will naturally put your hands in the position that is most comfortable for you, and gives you the best leverage.


I see no reason to believe that this will tell me anything other than the best place to put my hands for doing push-ups. I am not doing push-ups on my bike, so I don't see how the correlation makes sense. If it gets good results, I think it's coincidental, just like KOPS and measuring saddle size by wrist width. If that works for you, go for it.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

If it's too loud, turn it down.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

mack_turtle said:


> I see no reason to believe that this will tell me anything other than the best place to put my hands for doing push-ups. I am not doing push-ups on my bike, so I don't see how the correlation makes sense. If it gets good results, I think it's coincidental, just like KOPS and measuring saddle size by wrist width. If that works for you, go for it.


Basic physics and physiology. And if you are standing, going over obstacles, you are constantly doing mini push-ups. If you hands and arms are in the most comfortable and best place for leverage, you will be in the best position to apply leverage to counter steer while riding. You will also be in the position that puts the least amount of stress on your elbow and shoulder joints. Which will allow you to ride longer and harder.

As far as wider being better as is often said.
Yes if you are going very fast or with a very heavy bike, or heavy front tire, wider bars can help by requiring less effort to move the bars, but it also means it takes more actual movement for the same angle of direction change in the front tire.
Even motocross motorcycles, much faster, much heavier, than a mountain bike, rarely ever have over 800mm bars.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

mack_turtle said:


> My head asplode!


Bwahahaha I haven't even e-splained the head bearings situation! My frikkin' fork has no crown race, my balls are exposed to the elements!


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

armii said:


> Basic physics and physiology.


Not trying to be a dick about it, but you seem pretty sure that "basic physics and physiology" prove your theory? Can you point to peer-reviewed studies and calculations that back it up. Do you have academic credentials to back up your expertise? If the push-up method works for you, that's fine. Please don't offer a hypothesis on the public under the auspices of scientific rigor if it's not been tested beyond the subjective experience of a few people.

Seriously, not trying to pick a fight, but there is value in having the humility to say tell people about a theory with the context "in my experience" and "this method worked for me." Offering a subjective experience on the world as universal fact is not helpful.

I would argue that I don't do "mini push-ups" when I ride. The motion is quite a bit different, more of a forward and reverse rowing motion. You're also battling and creating lateral motions that don't happen when you do a push-up. My handlebar is much wider than my push-up stance, quote a bit wider than your calculation. I ride what you would call "XC" and I can't stand having it narrower. Am I doing it wrong?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

720mm flat bar with bar ends.
740mm riser bar feels about right.

Measure press-up hand spacing.
740mm.

Tried 800mm bars with same sweep, but no, no, no...


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

I'm quite comfortable doing Diamond push ups. I do a lot of them.
Do I need narrower bars?


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Rode 780s that came with the bike for more than a year. Then tried my wife's bike with 730 bars and it felt wayyyy easier to manuver. I progressively cut my bars to 740 and the bike just feels much easier to steer this way.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> I'm quite comfortable doing Diamond push ups. I do a lot of them.
> Do I need narrower bars?
> View attachment 1286771


Yes. You need some 20mm bars.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

While we're all comfortable being all anal and getting into arguing for argument's sake, if one has 780mm "bars", does that mean that the grip ends are 1560mm apart? I only have one bar on my bikes, they range from 720-760mm. Should I put another one on?


----------



## gmats (Apr 15, 2005)

Teufelhunde said:


> Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


Not sure what you consider to be wide. I know that is the "trend" or now the standard?

Personally, the kind of riding I do often here in the jungles of Hawaii, "wide" is not so good. And I'm old school so I run my bars around 680 mm. It's about shoulder width. Don't get me wrong though, there are a lot of people who like the wide bars and ride just as well out here. So in the end, it's just what you like and what works for you.

Disadvantages I found with "wide" bars? 
I often hit trees with the ends of the bars. 
Slower steering in the tight quarters when not ripping down flowy trails. Meaning tight, twisty, turning trails.

Advantages I found with "wide" bars? 
Slows down the steering so on ultra steep, grinding climbs, the bike tracks straighter. 
When in rough stuff the bike will stay straighter. 
Opens up the chest for better breathing?

Because I'm old school, I've learned how to handle the "twitchyness" of a shorter bar, stem combo on my bike in all kinds of conditions. People who ride my bike say it feels twitchy. I say it's like riding a short surfboard in big waves. It handles QUICK but I work with it and it works great for me.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

BmanInTheD said:


> , if one has 780mm "bars", does that mean that the grip ends are 1560mm apart? I only have one bar on my bikes, they range from 720-760mm. Should I put another one on?


Ha! That drives me insane, too. I am paid to be anal about words, so hearing someone say that a bicycle has "handlebars" and "forks" sounds so absurd.

"Mils" are not the same thing as millimeters.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Lol to 1560mm bars. That's over 5 feet! Like the Texas Longhorn of MTB!


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Lol to 1560mm bars. That's over 5 feet! Like the Texas Longhorn of MTB!


Hook 'em


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> Anything narrower than 720 belongs on a hybrid.


Anything wider than 600mm belongs in the landfill.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

When I got my fat bike , I understood the need for larger Handlebars , you need that extra leverage for the extra "gyroscopic force" of heavier , bigger wheels.

So I got an extra wide 630mm bar for my fat bike.

(I'm 6'2'')


----------



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

fokof said:


> ....So I got an extra wide 630mm bar for my fat bike.


lol, 90's flashback.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I wonder how long it'll be before someone invents power steering for bikes?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Nat said:


> I wonder how long it'll be before someone invents power steering for bikes?


Or a steering damper...


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Nat said:


> I wonder how long it'll be before someone invents power steering for bikes?


Here you go!







Just joshin ya, that's _REVERSE _steering!!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> lol, 90's flashback.


You had a fat bike in the '90s?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Here you go!
> View attachment 1286969
> 
> Just joshin ya, that's _REVERSE _steering!!


Ouch, my brain!


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Amazing how many experts here know NOTHING of simple ergonomics.
I wonder if another "expert" told them their pedals should be spaced 10" wider than their hip measurement, they'd do it because it's "correct".

Doing pushups with your hands wider or narrower than they naturally fall in order to improve specific muscles or muscle groups is one thing, but if you had to do them every day as part of your work (think of swinging a hammer), your body's inclination will be to do what is easiest and most comfortable.

Like someone said, put a mega-wide bar on your bike and ride around for a while. Your hands will naturally go where it's most comfortable and where you feel you can control the bike best and do your best riding.
What if it happens to be at XXXmm, when YYYmm is the "correct" length? The answer is "Go tell the bee it can't possibly fly because the rules of aerodynamics say it's not possible".

It's also funny how some people argue their point by trying to belittle instead of offering something like *gasp* fact, instead of opinion.
A lot of people discuss politics and religion the same way.

Interdasting.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> lol, 90's flashback.


Didn't know there was such a thing as "Fashion Police" in the MTB world.


----------



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

fokof said:


> Didn't know there was such a thing as "Fashion Police" in the MTB world.


Naw, I was just remembering when I first got 640mm bars and thought they were super wide. Skinny bars like that seem kind of sketchy to me now but to each his own. I really don't cart too much about fashion.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Amazing how many experts here know NOTHING of simple ergonomics.
> I wonder if another "expert" told them their pedals should be spaced 10" wider than their hip measurement, they'd do it because it's "correct".
> 
> Doing pushups with your hands wider or narrower than they naturally fall in order to improve specific muscles or muscle groups is one thing, but if you had to do them every day as part of your work (think of swinging a hammer), your body's inclination will be to do what is easiest and most comfortable.
> ...


Nobody has said 'XXX width is correct,' but you sure are eager to argue against that position.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

scottzg said:


> Nobody has said 'XXX width is correct,' but you sure are eager to argue against that position.


Except for 785mm, that size is definitely correct.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Well, I finally got around to putting my carbon bar on my Unit and everyone will be happy to know I didn't cut it, it's still 780. Went for a test spin and immediately ran one hand into a green briar and then clipped a tree. Now before anyone says "learn how to ride", it was probably more a display of my lack of trail building skills than bike skills; it was just a little trail I cut through the woods in my front yard and it needs some work.

But tonight I went for a proper ride. I have to say, it didn't really feel that much different than my 700s after a few seconds and I mostly forgot about it. I know, that's a huge difference but I guess I ride so many different bikes that I just adapt very quickly and they all feel normal (not to say they don't have to be dialed in). I probably will end up cutting them down to 760 or 740 but I'll try them some more as they are. I did manage to clip one tree but that's pretty common for me.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

chazpat said:


> Well, I finally got around to putting my carbon bar on my Unit and everyone will be happy to know I didn't cut it, it's still 780. Went for a test spin and immediately ran one hand into a green briar and then clipped a tree. Now before anyone says "learn how to ride", it was probably more a display of my lack of trail building skills than bike skills; it was just a little trail I cut through the woods in my front yard and it needs some work.
> 
> But tonight I went for a proper ride. I have to say, it didn't really feel that much different than my 700s after a few seconds and I mostly forgot about it. I know, that's a huge difference but I guess I ride so many different bikes that I just adapt very quickly and they all feel normal (not to say they don't have to be dialed in). I probably will end up cutting them down to 760 or 740 but I'll try them some more as they are. I did manage to clip one tree but that's pretty common for me.


Nice frame. Nice bar. Don't emasculate it. Let it thrive, in all its glory


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

scottzg said:


> Nobody has said 'XXX width is correct,' but you sure are eager to argue against that position.


_"Bike frame geometry is designed with an intended bar width and stem length."_
Sound familiar?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

scottzg said:


> Nobody has said 'XXX width is correct,' but you sure are eager to argue against that position.


Some people come to this forum just to tilt at windmills and stroke their false sense of martyrdom.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

fokof said:


> Didn't know there was such a thing as "Fashion Police" in the MTB world.


I see you joined the site in 2006. You been under a rock since then? This whole sport is fashion oriented, color matchy, matchy. :yesnod::lol:


----------



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

Or, form follows function.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

In the end, ride what works for you. 620, 820, whatever. I know what works for me but I have a different bike and body, and I ride different terrain than you. Nobody is "right" here.*

*with the caveat that the wider the better...

:thumbsup:


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

robbnj said:


> _"Bike frame geometry is designed with an intended bar width and stem length."_
> Sound familiar?


Yeah, that was me. I design and build mtb frames.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I am interested in some potential myths about wide handlebars:

"wider bars open your chest so you can breathe better." does this make any sense?

"you have to use a shorter stem if you use a wider bar." is there _really_ a correlation between handlebar width and stem length? prove it. perhaps the two are independent.

"a wide handlebar eliminates any reason to have bar ends." I know bar ends are not for everyone (I don't use them) and are out of style, but would someone who is used to bar ends just give them up simply because they have moved to a wider bar?

"a wider bar is needed for downhill and bike parks, but you should use a narrower bar for XC and 'trail' riding." it seems that is how most people set up their bikes for those disciplines, but is that because of trends and social expectations? professional level racing and riding notwithstanding, does any of that advice help the average rider?

"handlebar width should be proportional to shoulder width." I don't see how this works.

"you need a narrower handlebar for tight, twisty trails." how tight and twisty are these trails, overall, on average for the length of an entire long ride, that one should consider cutting down a handlebar just to accommodate a few tree gates?

on a related note, can we call a moratorium on hyperbole on this forum? I mean, damn, you can make your point without making everything sound like a literal life-and-death situation.


----------



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

mack_turtle said:


> I am interested in some potential myths about wide handlebars:
> 
> "wider bars open your chest so you can breathe better." does this make any sense?
> 
> ...


I never bought into the "wide bars open up the chest" deal.

A shorter stem with wider bars makes sense to me.

I used to like bar ends when narrow bars were a thing but they feel ridiculous on wide bars. I've seen people use them inside the brake levers and that seems about right.

In the extremes, wide bars for downhill provide more control and narrow bars for xc are more aero.

The only bar width I care about is the one on my own bike.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Every time my handlebar strikes something while riding, I am reminded about why I run such a wide handlebar.

I've voluntarily tried up 740mm wide, but have experienced as wide as 760, which came stock on some newer long travel bikes. Experiencing wider, and disliking it, made me try swapping to 720mm, and then swapping my other bikes to 720 or narrower (711 and 685). I've settled on 720, not feeling any urge to swap back to anything wider yet. I'm still open to narrower, as I think I just tried to make too big of a jump to 711/685 and had other complaints with wrist discomfort (couldn't find the sweet spot amount of bar-roll-angling). They were the low-rise type anyways, and I've been trending to a higher grip position that didn't have my back all hunched over.

I'm willing to try any setup that better jives with my preferred heavy-feet, light-hands, universal athletic position style. Haven't locked down my style yet--I still have a bad habit of resting weight on the bars, tensing up under bumps and braking, and essentially death gripping, which locks out my steering sometimes. Kind of lame how I'm helpless to follow the pattern of slowing down even more while death-gripping, to the point I end up getting through the corner by just steering at low speed, when I know I can more confidently carve while ignoring the bumps if I weren't on the brakes or tensed up.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I hate them on demo bikes.
I have very long legs, that makes all bikes too long to fit me.
That might be your case.
To fit my weird body i must use short bars + risers + saddle all the way forward.
I ride narrow trails so 800 are plain impossible.
It is like wheels, they switch to generate sales, they put too wide bars so we can personalize for our needs.
My first fat was 740 a bit too wide for me. I went to 720, 700, 680, 620.
Now my bikes are 620 to 680.
Usually i use carbon to limit cold transmission, we get minus 40 here.
It is your bike, fit it to you.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> on a related note, can we call a moratorium on hyperbole on this forum? I mean, damn, you can make your point without making everything sound like a literal life-and-death situation.


Haha, that describes at least half of the threads on MTBR!


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

Well, I like them in the middle. For me that is 700mm (I am 193cm tall and hence my arms also reach far). Still that is today considered narrow. I know that today guys with shorter arms comment how bike is not good for having "only" 720mm. The last two bikes I bought came with those "narrow" 720s. I cut them both to 700mm.
Also, I think it is a fad, cause it is NOT easier to steer with 700+mm (at least if you are average person) no matter how short your stem is, and how technical you discipline is.
Besides, super wide handle bars can actually make normal breathing harder, and for sure it is harder to clear obstacles on narrow singletracks, and they are even worse in urban traffic.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> I am interested in some potential myths about wide handlebars:
> 
> "wider bars open your chest so you can breathe better." does this make any sense?
> 
> ...


Breathing better? I don't buy it. If there was anything to this I think you would hear it being discussed more in road racing where a 440mm bar is on the wide side.

Shorter stem with wider bar? It has always worked that way for me and it makes sense. Push your hands farther apart and it pulls you forwards. Thus a shorter stem if you want the riding position to feel similar.

Bar ends? Used them with narrow bars back in the day where they serve a good purpose, but once I got beyond 660mm, They ceased being useful to me, and just took up extra bar width. So yeah, I did give them up after using them for years due to going with a wider bar. And if I were to ride narrow bars again (like a flat bar road bike) I would use bar ends.

Proportional to shoulder width? Sorta, but not really. Shoulder width probably has SOME influence, but it is just one of many factors.

Catching trees? Depends on where you ride, but in general I am willing to slow down for an occasional tight spot. Some people don't want to have to slow down.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

My thoughts:



mack_turtle said:


> "wider bars open your chest so you can breathe better." does this make any sense?


TRUE, to a certain point. Coming from a road racing perspective, Greg Lemond got road riders to think about the benefits of a slightly wider bar from a breathing standpoint. Now what he was suggesting was about 2 cm (20mm) wider so this isn't like going from a 660mm bar to a 800mm bar. So I think there are some benefits to a wider bar, but there are diminishing returns beyond a certain point.



mack_turtle said:


> "you have to use a shorter stem if you use a wider bar." is there _really_ a correlation between handlebar width and stem length? prove it. perhaps the two are independent.


YES, I think it helps to shorten the stem when widening the bars. The shorter stem helps mitigate the increased reach to the grips. (Pythagorean Theorem: Length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is proportional to the length of the other two sides of the right triangle) Back before the idea of wider bars came about (and typical handlebars were 560mm), a 20 mm or greater change in stem length definitely sped up or slowed down how a bike handled so the same effect should hold true for wider handlebar widths as well.



mack_turtle said:


> "a wide handlebar eliminates any reason to have bar ends." I know bar ends are not for everyone (I don't use them) and are out of style, but would someone who is used to bar ends just give them up simply because they have moved to a wider bar?


YES & NO, a wider bar and bar ends have different benefits. I have found bar ends to be useful for using different upper body muscles for long climbs. That said, I don't use bar ends anymore with my current 775 mm bar width. This is not because I don't think there is value to bar ends, but with bars beyond a certain width, putting my hands even further out past the end of those bars feels awkward and not a position in which I am effectively able to use my upper body to create leverage for climbing. Holding bar ends like I might hold the brake hoods on a road bike would be ideal, but that position can only happen with pretty narrow handlebars which I no longer see value in running for my typical rides.



mack_turtle said:


> "a wider bar is needed for downhill and bike parks, but you should use a narrower bar for XC and 'trail' riding." it seems that is how most people set up their bikes for those disciplines, but is that because of trends and social expectations? professional level racing and riding notwithstanding, does any of that advice help the average rider?


NO, there are other factors that I would consider including shoulder width, shoulder musculature (or lack thereof), type of trails.



mack_turtle said:


> "handlebar width should be proportional to shoulder width." I don't see how this works.


KIND OF, shoulder strength is also a consideration: https://www.leelikesbikes.com/my-shoulders-hurt-are-my-bars-too-wide.html

Good blog post from Dr. Dane Delozier from Revo PT & Sports Performance about how to determine the right bar width: https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/are-your-handlebars-too-wide

His blog post also include pictures showing how Aaron Gwin is able to ride what looks like a fairly wide bar with strong shoulder musculature and how a similarly wide bar is clearly too wide for another rider.











mack_turtle said:


> "you need a narrower handlebar for tight, twisty trails." how tight and twisty are these trails, overall, on average for the length of an entire long ride, that one should consider cutting down a handlebar just to accommodate a few tree gates?


DEPENDS. Having lived and ridden in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic/New England, California, and now the Pacific Northwest. I can say that narrower bars definitely help for certain trails in the Mid-Atlantic and New England. The challenge is not just a "few tree gates", but that on certain trails you are literally chasing your tail around trees for the entire length of the trail. Being able to maneuver a 660mm bar between a 600mm gap between trees was a useful if you had the skills to do it. In general, I have not found trails with turns that are that tight in either California or the Pacific Northwest, so running a narrow bar here is not even a consideration for me. If I lived in the Northeast, I might consider running a slightly narrower 720mm bar width (but probably not anywhere near the 560mm bars I used to run)



mack_turtle said:


> on a related note, can we call a moratorium on hyperbole on this forum? I mean, damn, you can make your point without making everything sound like a literal life-and-death situation.


YES, interesting topic to discuss, but I don't see a clear right and wrong in terms of bar width. Again, this is a great blog post for how to think about finding the right bar width: https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/are-your-handlebars-too-wide


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> "handlebar width should be proportional to shoulder width." I don't see how this works.


You wouldn't expect rider 2 with 2" wider shoulders than rider 1 to favor wider bars, everything else being equal? Sure, there are other factors but it is a consideration. Isn't rider height proportional to bike size?


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

scottzg said:


> Bike frame geometry is designed with an intended bar width and stem length. And bars are tuned to flex around that width. Deviate drastically from what was intended and you will probably end up with a harsh riding bike that steers weird.


Good point. I cut my 720mm to 700mm. If I put 800mm or cut down to 640mm, it would feel wrong, no matter my personal preference.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

"Proportional" doesn't mean "equal to." The proportion could be 1.5:1 bar:shoulder ratio. There's probably an actual "best fit" proportion that some biomechanist can figure out.


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

wgscott said:


> My kid just badgered me into ordering 800mm carbone bars for him. Spoiled extremist.


My dad would told me to make myself a bar out of bamboo:skep:
But he did paid for my grad school, sooooo:thumbsup:


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

We have quite a few trails around here where you have to turn your bars a bit sideways, or lean a bit in one direction to counter-lean the bike, to clear trees. I have videos of doing mach-9 next to trees on some Texas trails. I'd like to see some videos of these trails that you can't run ~780 on. In the winter time, our swamps freeze and trails start appearing out of the woodwork, all kinds of gates and tight spots to maneuver around. Never thinking that bars are limiting it, so I'm genuinely curious what it looks like while riding for these trails that must be somehow even "tighter"?


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Jayem said:


> We have quite a few trails around here where you have to turn your bars a bit sideways, or lean a bit in one direction to counter-lean the bike, to clear trees. I have videos of doing mach-9 next to trees on some Texas trails. I'd like to see some videos of these trails that you can't run ~780 on. In the winter time, our swamps freeze and trails start appearing out of the woodwork, all kinds of gates and tight spots to maneuver around. Never thinking that bars are limiting it, so I'm genuinely curious what it looks like while riding for these trails that must be somehow even "tighter"?


Me too. I am a little confused about this as well.

I have been running 800s for years through the most densely forested trails of BC and Alberta. Trails with names like "Black Forest", for self explanatory reasons.* I have learned to "swim" through the very infrequent super tight spots. No issues. Everyone I know who rides uses the exact same technique.

* I see on TrailForks that this Fernie BC trail is described as being [a] narrow section of single track *through dense trees *with a steep exit for a more exciting way to connect to View Trail."


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Me too. I am a little confused about this as well.
> 
> I have been running 800s for years through the most densely forested trails of BC and Alberta. Trails with names like "Black Forest", for self explanatory reasons.* I have learned to "swim" through the very infrequent super tight spots. No issues. Everyone I know who rides uses the exact same technique.
> 
> * I see on TrailForks that this Fernie BC trail is described as being [a] narrow section of single track *through dense trees *with a steep exit for a more exciting way to connect to View Trail."


These kind of trail systems, while far from my favorite, are what I ride occasionally on work-trips when I bring my bike: https://www.trailforks.com/region/lake-stanley-draper-mountain-bike-park/

When you are moving at a good clip, there are all kinds of trees right next to the trail, seemingly "danger-close". You are constantly turning as the trail constantly loops back on itself. Often you can see another section of trail a few feet away through the trees...but it could be a mile or more before you get there. Like a maze. You can clip a bar if you wander to the side of the trail...but that is pretty much regardless of the size, more about your line choice and keeping your hands at the edges of the bars so your brain "knows" where the end of your bars is. The East Coast is one place I haven't ridden though, so I don't know. For sure, there are lots of tight places in the Mountain West, including tight places in the rocks in AZ where you are going to scrape some bike part, maybe the pedal, maybe the derailleur, maybe a bar, etc. The Western half of the continent is not So-Cal fire-road trails.

I find these tight "5 miles of trail packed into a few acres" trail systems pretty boring, but the one redeeming feature is going fast and feeling like you are in the ROTJ speeder-scene. The whole rush there is feeling like you are close to the edge.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I am just north of Vermont. After some freezing rains or in spring there is a solid crust and we enjoy riding anywhere with our fat *off trails* whatever your skill level you cannot fallow me with with my sub 700 bars. Some trails are narrow they are more dog walkers stuff and when i guide new riders(the network map is in our head) i warn them about trees and i ear many tocs like i did when i started there.
It is just usefull when you have to stop to let someone pass i just use the side of the trail, no need to stop most of the time.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

johnnyrmxd said:


> (I am 193cm tall and hence my arms also reach far)


Whats does 193cm mean?


----------



## Boom King (Jun 5, 2016)

tom tom said:


> Whats does 193cm mean?


It means he lives somewhere that uses the metric system.... Pretty much everywhere except the USA.

(Also, he's around 6' 4" tall)


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

It means we can blame that tall rider.
I just randomly clicked the first bar for sale on CRC and on each side there were many small lines to help us cut it evenly so it is obvious the manufacturer does a 1 size fit all.
That tall rider might buy it but a 5ft, 2in might also buy it and cut it.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

My 2017 Marin PMO came as 780mm and 50 a mm stem.
I modernized with my new bike from 2003 so it had been a while - lol. 

Felt way different but better in a few ways and took a bit of getting used to. I did smack a few things as trails and woods here can get tight and not even 'tight' compared to what some you others know and experience. As for now, I'm running a 720 just because I got a good price on a cf bar for another older bike but decided to try it on the PM. Not really missing the 780 much but I don't feel either defines the bike. It's got to be the rider that fits and dials it all in IMO. 

My ride position is affected by the reach associated with the wider versus narrow bar and the more narrow bar gives a faster turn-in feel. Pretty sure I'm liking the cf over aluminum too. In general though, I'd say I'm a fan of the wider bar trend and shorty stem. Trails here will dictate if I go back to as wide as 780 later on but the comment about 760 - 740 being a good range for most is probably true and I likely will stick with cf for any bar changes.


----------



## A/C in Az (Jan 14, 2019)

Teufelhunde said:


> Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


I hate the current trend of wide bars. I think it is for all the weight weenies who have no upper body strength. I prefer the quick response I get from my narrow bars. I can't cut the oem bars because they are too fat for the brakes at the point where I would cut, so I buy the <$50 carbon bars on Amazon that are push up width for me. Young kids always comment about my narrow bars being "old school" but I don't care what anyone thinks. It's MY bike and I will modify it to suit/ fit me best. If I ever sell a bike, I have the oem bars and stems to restore it to original; oh, I also go with a 30 to 50mm stem with my narrow bars. I just don't get why kids complain their bikes are too twitchy with a short stem and narrow bars. They just don't have any arm strength or muscles, I guess.....


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

A/C in Az said:


> I hate the current trend of wide bars. I think it is for all the weight weenies who have no upper body strength. I prefer the quick response I get from my narrow bars. I can't cut the oem bars because they are too fat for the brakes at the point where I would cut, so I buy the <$50 carbon bars on Amazon that are push up width for me. Young kids always comment about my narrow bars being "old school" but I don't care what anyone thinks. It's MY bike and I will modify it to suit/ fit me best. If I ever sell a bike, I have the oem bars and stems to restore it to original; oh, I also go with a 30 to 50mm stem with my narrow bars. I just don't get why kids complain their bikes are too twitchy with a short stem and narrow bars. They just don't have any arm strength or muscles, I guess.....


Want to have a pull up contest?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

bachman1961 said:


> My 2017 Marin PMO came as 780mm and 50 a mm stem.
> I modernized with my new bike from 2003 so it had been a while - lol.
> 
> Felt way different but better in a few ways and took a bit of getting used to. I did smack a few things as trails and woods here can get tight and not even 'tight' compared to what some you others know and experience. As for now, I'm running a 720 just because I got a good price on a cf bar for another older bike but decided to try it on the PM. Not really missing the 780 much but I don't feel either defines the bike. It's got to be the rider that fits and dials it all in IMO.
> ...


marin PM = marin pine mountain? i almost bought that bike but nobody in SF had one on hand.

i think all their '17 bikes were 780 x 50/60, depending on size.

i went to 725 x 70 on my HH1 which was stock at 780 x 60 and am happy--but think i might be happier at 740. stay tuned.


----------



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

A/C in Az said:


> I just don't get why kids complain their bikes are too twitchy with a short stem and narrow bars. They just don't have any arm strength or muscles, I guess.....


lol, or maybe kids these days just prefer current tech over antiques?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

A/C in Az said:


> I hate the current trend of wide bars. I think it is for all the weight weenies who have no upper body strength..


Err, wider bars are heavier, thus anti weight weenie. Weight weenies would favor narrow bars.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

chazpat said:


> Err, wider bars are heavier, thus anti weight weenie. Weight weenies would favor narrow bars.


Yeah, I caught that part too. He made no sense there.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Never realized one needed to have massive upper body strength to steer a bicycle.

I know you aren't serious, but thanks for the chuckle from nonsense. Good one.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Kids were brain washed with new tablet = better
new smart phone = better
imagine they totally swallowed new geo
Excuse me but being over 15 YO and not knowing how to write and no clue how to add it might the system that deserves the blame but did you learn anything in your first 8 years in school?
They just buy the BS of fake reviews, who cares it is not like they saved 3 years to buy a bike. It will get paid bit by bit, plastic style.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chazpat said:


> Err, wider bars are heavier, thus anti weight weenie. Weight weenies would favor narrow bars.


Well, I did drop 5 grams by switching my weight-weenie 720 Next SL bars and Ritchey WCS stem to a Syncros Hixon SL 780 bar/stem/star/bem, whatever you want to call it. Now I finally have the width I need on my XC race bike, it's stronger than what I had before, and I saved 5g!


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

A/C in Az said:


> It's MY bike and I will modify it to suit/ fit me best. I also go with a 30 to 50mm stem with my narrow bars.


You should set up the bike as best fits and works for you. Smart way to do it. :thumbsup: 
I'm sure it isn't the typical case but when reading a lot of posts about what comes on or with a bike as set up new, You'd think nobody has any idea the bike needs to be tailored to suit the individual. Brake levers / shifters width and off-set angle, bar type; sweep, riser or width etc..... Set it up right or the first few rides are going to feel wrong, strange or you'll come back feeling sore. I have little doubt many riders get a new bike and just figure; "Oh I'll get used to the few differences." discounting the idea that the bike should fit them not they adapting to the bike in some of those ways.

We all know (at least bike fit taught me) people of exact same height have multiple variations such as trunk, arms and inseam even thought they may relate to the same frame-size suggestion. 
I do 'get it' that much of the thoughts and comments on forums are helpful, valid and worthy of discussion even getting us thinking about options, suggestions and the sort yet it seems hilarious at times to see what is likely a _proper fit or preference to the individual _ stated as hate mail to the inventor of the contrary option, size or ?? **(insert objectionable idea or design parameter here)** . :lol:



shekky said:


> marin PM = marin pine mountain? i almost bought that bike but nobody in SF had one on hand.
> i think all their '17 bikes were 780 x 50/60, depending on size.
> i went to 725 x 70 on my HH1 which was stock at 780 x 60 and am happy--but think i might be happier at 740. stay tuned.


Yeah, I recall you as a Marin fan. 
The Pine Mountain One was in very short supply at the time I was shopping over here as well. I thought the sales staff was just egging me on in the quest to push a sale because they were talking it up so much. Two of them claimed to try purchasing but were told by Marin the customer orders come first and were short supplied. I'd guess Marin wanted to fill the LBS orders for profitable sales/dealers before going the way of employee programs that offer good discounts. 
I test rode a medium and large, bought the large and decided within 2 - 3 days I wanted the medium. They were trying to get more mediums and would call when it was built. A few days later I got a call, loaded up the large and drove the 3 miles to the store that afternoon. It was sold and gone ! 
I kept the large another week agreeing not to tear it up on the trails too much and finally got my medium. The Colorado area was mostly kaput for sourcing that bike but I didn't really know it until I was in it.

I'll bet you are really enjoying that Hawk Hill !


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Big personal preference thing, ride what works for you. I'm 183cm and run 780mm on my FS and 760mm on my HT, both with 50mm stems. Too many tight trails for anything much wider where I live.



33red said:


> Kids were brain washed with new tablet = better
> new smart phone = better
> imagine they totally swallowed new geo
> Excuse me but being over 15 YO and not knowing how to write and no clue how to add it might the system that deserves the blame but did you learn anything in your first 8 years in school?
> They just buy the BS of fake reviews, who cares it is not like they saved 3 years to buy a bike. It will get paid bit by bit, plastic style.


:skep:


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

I dislike both the way I feel on bars wider than 700mm and how it makes very narrow sigle tracks feel very scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Still looking to see some good examples of this super-tight singletrack. I did some searches on youtube and what mostly comes up is motorcycle stuff. Would like to see some.

This one gets incredibly tight around the 4:30 mark, whether it's new snow or not, it's always a nice challenge in a few of these spots. You can see where my bars are turning to keep clearance. The trail is unreadable in the summer due to being a swamp, but the route is maintained and real fun technical, lots of ups-n-downs to get over roots and logs.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Seeing small people with wide bars...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Another small person with wide bars, looking quite comfortable:


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Still looking to see some good examples of this super-tight singletrack. ]


I recall when I moved to Dead Moines, Iowa years ago that I thought the trees were super tight. They were definitely tighter than the ponderosa forests in Colorado that I was used to but I tried pulling up some photos of midwest single track and the trees don't look all that tight to me any more.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Sometimes it doesn't matter how narrow your bars are. The trails always find a way of catching you out.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

NordieBoy said:


> Or a steering damper...


I sure Hopey so...


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

6’2” and run 670mm bars. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Nat said:


> I sure Hopey so...


I Cane see it happening.

I do like stealth design of the Viscoset.


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

Jayem said:


> Still looking to see some good examples of this super-tight singletrack. I did some searches on youtube and what mostly comes up is motorcycle stuff


Well, there is only one I can remember, I use to ride it quite often (it had amazing serpentine descents, a bit dangerous also). But I must confess it was actually a hiking trail, used mostly by mountain bikers. And it is here in Europe. Everything is narrower here, from people (LOL) to trails. And you should see some of the streets in the city I live in.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

Nat said:


> Another small person with wide bars, looking quite comfortable:
> 
> View attachment 1288129


I think she seems smaller cause of the very narrow shoulders. However her arms seem to be of a decent length.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

For me, trail width has little to nothing to do with my preferred bar width. And before this thread, I didn’t even know what that was. About 28” btw. 
I don’t like wide bars -whatever all the various demo bikes I’ve ridden come with- any better on wide open trails than on narrow trails.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

Jayem said:


> We have quite a few trails around here where you have to turn your bars a bit sideways, or lean a bit in one direction to counter-lean the bike, to clear trees. I have videos of doing mach-9 next to trees on some Texas trails. I'd like to see some videos of these trails that you can't run ~780 on. In the winter time, our swamps freeze and trails start appearing out of the woodwork, all kinds of gates and tight spots to maneuver around. Never thinking that bars are limiting it, so I'm genuinely curious what it looks like while riding for these trails that must be somehow even "tighter"?


I don't have video, but there are some trails in that state that were built specifically to prohibit horse traffic. The tree gates on them are narrow, almost impossible to ride, though some people claim they like the challenge. With 800mm bars set against these gaps, theres 20-30mm of bar overlapping each tree, and both side have bark ripped off from failed attempts. That's tight enough. Next time you're in Texas, try to hit Pedernales State Park, Juniper Ridge trail. You won't be getting the ROTJ speeder effect.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Still looking to see some good examples of this super-tight singletrack. I did some searches on youtube and what mostly comes up is motorcycle stuff. Would like to see some.


This is a good example of what I used to run into on trails in the Mid Atlantic and New England. Trees and foliage grow more densely on the East Coast than on the West Coast. Also since the mountains on the East Coast are older, there are more rocks and boulders that have been exposed. Between trees, other foliage and the boulders, I would more frequently run into places on the trail where there were obstacles intruding onto the trail on both sides.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Spectre said:


> TBetween trees, other foliage and the boulders, I would more frequently run into places on the trail where there were obstacles intruding onto the trail on both sides.


Because I have never ridden in this region and I am genuinely curious- approximately what % of the linear distance of trails around here feature extensive tree gates/ boulder passes that are "narrow"? approximately how many times per mile would you have to actually dismount to wiggle your bike through a gap that is so close that any modern "wide" handlebar literally can't go through it?

trails with that many super-narrow tree gates were just poorly designed and scary to ride no matter what kind of handlebar you have. I would just as soon ride someplace where the trail was cut with someone who has at least half a brain.

I don't see a bike in that photo for perspective, so I can't tell if that gap is 4 feet wide or 4 inches. I am not doubting you, just asking for clarification.

I ask because I would think it would have to be a LOT of tree gates before _I_ would consider compromising the handling of my bike that I enjoy for 99% of the trail and just deal with the occasional tree gate when I get to it. I am sure the terrain where you live and ride is different, but I also know that _everyone_ has a tendency to exaggerate how difficult their local terrain is, sometimes claiming that locales with fun, challenging terrain are "boring."

FWIW, most of the people where I live have adopted the wide handlebar approach, but there are a few who claim that they have to cut their bar to get through tree gates. I ride the same trails that they do and navigate those _same _tree gates with a 760mm bar. Indian/ arrow metaphor applies here, in this specific case, maybe not yours.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

mack_turtle said:


> FWIW, most of the people where I live have adopted the wide handlebar approach, but there are a few who claim that they have to cut their bar to get through tree gates. I ride the same trails that they do and navigate those _same _tree gates with a 760mm bar. Indian/ arrow metaphor applies here, in this specific case, maybe not yours.


One thing I found when I started with bar not cut down my hands naturally wanted to be really far in on the bars (basically on the flanges of my grips) so there was a lot of bar outside my hand. I found I clipped a few trees when my bars were like this. I mean not saying a ton but a few.

Once I cut the bars down a bit (to 760mm) my hands were not so far in. I kind of wonder if my clipping trees was less due to the extra length and more due to having more length outside my hand I wasn't used to.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Spectre said:


> This is a good example of what I used to run into on trails in the Mid Atlantic and New England. Trees and foliage grow more densely on the East Coast than on the West Coast. Also since the mountains on the East Coast are older, there are more rocks and boulders that have been exposed. Between trees, other foliage and the boulders, I would more frequently run into places on the trail where there were obstacles intruding onto the trail on both sides.
> 
> View attachment 1288369


If it's only one gap every once in awhile like in the photo then I'd be able to deal with it and my 780mm bars. The photo shows quite a bit of space before and after the tight spot where there's nothing. I'm with Mack Turtle on this one. There would have to be a LOT of tight spots before compromising my handling by cutting my bars. Or I might go trail running instead.

Some of the older trails in my area got routed through two narrow trees, maybe 24" apart. The older trail builders (now in their 70s) did it on purpose to "slow things down" but the trails aren't even fast ones. Those guys are also locally infamous for santiizing sections they decided are too difficult. How baby boomer of them.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Nat said:


> How baby boomer of them.


This, in general. Blame boomers. Those farts were the ones handing out the participation trophies and now they're buying e-bikes and sanitizing trails.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> Because I have never ridden in this region and I am genuinely curious- approximately what % of the linear distance of trails around here feature extensive tree gates/ boulder passes that are "narrow"? approximately how many times per mile would you have to actually dismount to wiggle your bike through a gap that is so close that any modern "wide" handlebar literally can't go through it?
> 
> trails with that many super-narrow tree gates were just poorly designed and scary to ride no matter what kind of handlebar you have. I would just as soon ride someplace where the trail was cut with someone who has at least half a brain.
> 
> ...


In truth, I haven't ridden in the Mid-Atlantic or New England since 2000 so my comments are based on my memory of what I rode. And the widest bars I used back then were 560mm. But I remember thinking pretty frequently back then about handlebar clearance and how my bar ends might hook onto a tree or bush. A lot of trails that I rode back then were built for hiking so clearance between boulders and trees was just not a consideration. To my point below, I've not run wider handlebars in the Mid-Atlantic or New England and if I actually did, my perspective on whether wider bars would work might be different. My main point is that handlebars wider than 740mm MIGHT not work everywhere. BUT they also might work just fine. Just sharing that trailside obstacles and foliage in certain parts of the world MIGHT make wider bars less feasible.

As a reference, I currently run a bar width of about 770 to 785mm and don't think I've ever had trouble with clearance with that bar width here on the West Coast. Since I've moved to the West Coast, I don't think I've ever thought about clearance. FWIW, a 740mm bar feels slightly on the narrow side to me now. If I moved back to New England or the Mid-Atlantic, I would probably try starting with that bar width.

I notice a lot of folks commenting on this thread come from west of the Rockies so I will suggest that forests on the East Coast with more deciduous trees and underbrush produces ground level growth that is more dense than the evergreen trees without branches that stick out at ground level that I typically see on the West Coast (at least in CA, OR and WA)

As an analogous situation, the Path Bike Shop podcast had a segment a while back in which they were chatting about 30 tooth chainrings and how some listeners had called in saying that they could not imagine using a chainring with less than 32 teeth and that they were running 34 or 36 tooth chainrings. The key point that they brought up was that a 20 minute climb might be the absolute longest climb that you might find in certain states, but climbs that take 45 minutes or more are typical climbs on the West Coast. The point that the Path guys were conveying is that compared to East Coast riders, we spend a lot more time in low gears here on the West Coast. My point with this is that if you've not ridden in a particular area of the country or other places around the world, it might be difficult to imagine how the nature of the terrain and foliage (or even what "forest" means) in those places might be completely different than what you've already seen.

(For a non-mountain biking example, my wife and I got a lot of completely ridiculous "advice" from her cousins that didn't have kids as to how we should parent. Their experience was based on watching their nieces and nephews for a couple of hours versus taking care of a newborn 24/7. A couple of years later when they had babies of their own, it was pretty clear that they weren't following their own "advice" and what they thought taking care of a baby would be like was totally different from reality. From my work talking to people as a UX researcher, it's pretty clear to me that the great majority of people have great difficulty imagining situations that may be even just slightly different than what they have personally experienced.)


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

For the love of God!

Is it really THAT hard to believe that some people ride in places with tight trees that they find easier to navigate with narrower bars?

Do you suspect people are just making this stuff up?

I abso-freaking-lutely need to take things slower with 775mm bars than with 660mm bars in some of the less-developed places I've ridden on the East Coast. I still prefer the wide bars, but I would be lying if I pretend they don't slow me down in some places.

I went on a ride a few weeks ago in PA where my bars were literally pushing through bushes on both sides of the trail for long stretches. Some rarely traveled ridges in VA are the same way (that's how I broke my wrist).

I'm sorry, but if you've mainly ridden out west and not actually LIVED on the East Coast, ridden some of the little known, local, less developed trails, then maybe you just can't get it. Sure, the well-maintained and trafficked places you are likely to VISIT are not super tight, but many people live in areas where a good chunk of what they ride are little more than rarely-traveled, rarely maintained, and rarely cut back paths that often don't even have names.

And no, I am not going to go out with a tape measure and camera to prove it.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

kapusta said:


> For the love of God!
> 
> Is it really THAT hard to believe that some people ride in places with tight trees that they find easier to navigate with narrower bars?


HAHA. So true. One principle that worked well for us in product development at Honda was the Three Reality Principle: 'We go to the actual place where things happen'; 'we learn about the actual situation'; 'and we are realistic'. MEANING Don't waste your time using "logic" to build a mental concept of what the world "should" be like (versus what the world is ACTUALLY like).

I give a whole lot more credence to your thoughts given that you actually live and ride in VA. And, WHY are people who have never ridden east of the Rockies so concerned about what handlebar length riders in those areas choose to run???


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

Spectre said:


> Don't waste your time using "logic" to build a mental concept of what the world "should" be like (versus what the world is ACTUALLY like).


I actually crashed twice because I hit bar against the tree on one of my favorite super-narrow trails. And that was with „only" 720mm width. And I had been on that trail at least 100 times.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Let’s say a 760mm bar is “wide” and a 660mm bar is “not wide.” 

That’s a difference of 100mm total, or 50mm per side, or less than 2” per side. 

If 2” is the difference between moving forward or clipping the end of the bar then how the heck does one lean the bike to the side (like when pedaling hard out of the saddle or when turning)? Do you keep the bike perfectly vertical the entire ride? 

Riding would be kind of a pain in the ass if 2” on either end meant the difference between forward motion and coming to a dead stop.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Nat said:


> Let's say a 760mm bar is "wide" and a 660mm bar is "not wide."
> 
> That's a difference of 100mm total, or 50mm per side, or less than 2" per side.
> 
> ...


Some have 800, my average is 650 it is a ton. On my HT i can ride close to trees on the right or the left to avoid stuff and be more on a flow. I know with suspensions over 130 many just ride the middle.
I was forced to do that on 2 demos i did this season and it was boring always doing 1 thing.


----------



## mrallen (Oct 11, 2017)

Nat said:


> Let's say a 760mm bar is "wide" and a 660mm bar is "not wide."
> 
> That's a difference of 100mm total, or 50mm per side, or less than 2" per side.
> 
> ...


2" per side is a huge difference. Not advocating either way. Folks should ride whatever they want, but regardless that is a big difference in bar size.

I demo'd a bike with 40mm total difference on trails I ride all the time. It's amazing how many times I clipped a bar with just 10mm sticking out past my hand.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

What happens when two 800mm wide rider meet on a narrow trail ?

Who has to "foot down" to pass over the other ?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mrallen said:


> 2" per side is a huge difference. Not advocating either way. Folks should ride whatever they want, but regardless that is a big difference in bar size.
> 
> I demo'd a bike with 40mm total difference on trails I ride all the time. It's amazing how many times I clipped a bar with just 10mm sticking out past my hand.


2" is a big difference in handling but in terms of actual clearance from immoveable trailside obstacles? It's about the width of two or three knuckles. You demo'ed a bike, meaning you spent just a limited time on it. One ride? Your brain needs a little time to get used to where your hands are so you don't smash trees. I need to see these trails in which you ride through an extended channel where an extra 100mm of width makes forward motion physically impossible. I want to see some video. Somebody somewhere must've had a GoPro on them.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I have to wonder if there’s not a psychological issue similar to people that don’t want to ride on trails with “exposure” as in a drop-off on the side, even when there is plenty of trail tread. So if trees are “close”, even if there is no actual danger, maybe that’s too much for some?


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

fokof said:


> What happens when two 800mm wide rider meet on a narrow trail ?
> 
> Who has to "foot down" to pass over the other ?


One wishes narrow gets trendy.
The other wishes his IQ was 3 digits wide


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Some context to start off for anyone just joining this conversation:
1. I have a lot of experience riding on both the East Coast & the West Coast

I lived in the New York City metro area for 14 years & rode in NY/NJ/CT/PA/RI/MA for 11 years.
I lived and rode in SoCal for 5 years
I lived and rode in the SF Bay Area, Santa Cruz for 7 years
I now live in the Seattle metro area and have ridden there for 7 years
2. I currently ride 775 mm wide bars. On the West Coast, I see no reason to ride handlebars that are any narrower.

3. My bar width during the 32 years that I have been riding mountain bikes have ranged from 540mm to 800mm.



Nat said:


> Let's say a 760mm bar is "wide" and a 660mm bar is "not wide."
> 
> That's a difference of 100mm total, or 50mm per side, or less than 2" per side.
> 
> ...


My default response mode for online forums is to be cordial, understanding that people are different in their perspectives and how much they have experienced. BUT to echo Kapusta's earlier comments, I am beginning to wonder if some people are either plain stupid, have difficulty understanding the experiences of others, or just like online debating. Let me address your assumptions and provide and some numbers.

*Assumptions
*
1.


Nat said:


> Let's say a 760mm bar is "wide" and a 660mm bar is "not wide."


"not wide" is the 560mm wide bar I used to run on the East Coast. "wide" is a 660mm bar.

*Effect of downsizing from a 760mm bar to a 560mm bar in numbers:*
760mm - 560mm = 200mm. 
200mm = 7.87402 inches. 
A 560mm bar is 23% narrower than a 760mm bar

Imagine if your bike were 23% heavier than it currently is. So your 30 lb bike would now be 37 lbs. Would you still climb as well with a 37 lb bike versus a 30 lb bike?

2.


Nat said:


> If 2" is the difference between moving forward or clipping the end of the bar then how the heck does one lean the bike to the side (like when pedaling hard out of the saddle or when turning)?


Mountain bikers on the East Coast do know how to lean their bikes. In fact, they are able to do it most of the time (98.324252523% would be my rough estimate of the percentage of time that a mountain bike can be leaned over on an East Coast trail). Trees, boulders & other obstacles don't line 100% of the trail. It's probably more like 5.032935234% of the trail. As an example of the remaining 1.675747477% of the time when it is difficult to lean a bike over, there might be a boulder on one side, a tree trunk on the other side, and you are going down a wet, slick, mossy rock drop that is canted at a 23.046382342% angle. So yes, you of course could lean the bars over if you had the trials skills of Danny MacAskill which 99.99999999% of mountain bike riders don't have.

3.


Nat said:


> Riding would be kind of a pain in the ass if 2" on either end meant the difference between forward motion and coming to a dead stop.


Yes, sometimes off by just an inch can be a giant pain in the ass. Maybe this driver should have just leaned his truck over a *little*?









2" on either side of the bars = 4" narrower, let alone the 8" narrower bars I used to run. Now imagine that having 8" more room meant that you could have fun riding a trail versus not riding the trail at all. From your comments, it sounds like you would prefer to run the bars that are 8" wider and have the experience of riding that trail be a "pain in the ass" the whole way?

*That's the last of what I can add of value to this thread.*


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

Bar fit similar to getting the correct sized frame. Some of the disagreement here seems to be based on ignoring size of the rider relative to bar. 

I think bars in general were too narrow across all sizes and were paired with long stems, short top tubes, and steep head angles - and these were artifacts from road cycling and the XC emphasis in early days of MTB. 

So the average bar size range has grown - from 580-680 to 680-800. Along with shorter stems, longer reach, slacker HA, and (more recently) steeper STAs, these changes have improved handling for mountain bikes - but this time having been influenced by downhill and motor cross (where most suspension technology and innovation has been derived). 

Bar needs to match rider size and geo of bike. Try bench press with hands at 580. Now try with hands wider, and see which one gives you more strength. Find the sweet spot for your body and bike.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Spectre said:


> 2. I currently ride 775 mm wide bars. On the West Coast, I see no reason to ride handlebars that are any narrower.


*shakes head*


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Spectre said:


> "not wide" is the 560mm wide bar I used to run on the East Coast. "wide" is a 660mm bar.


I got the 660mm number from Kapusta. FWIW, he did call them "narrower" and not "narrow" so you two can work out where your definition of "wide" begins.



Spectre said:


> Trees, boulders & other obstacles don't line 100% of the trail. It's probably more like 5.032935234% of the trail.


That there is EXACTLY where I was going with this. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. People post like it's physically impossible to maneuver a bike with a wider bar through the trees on the east coast, as if you're going through a hard tunnel. There's room, you just need to adjust for it.

We have tight trees out here on the west coast too:


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jayem said:


> I have to wonder if there's not a psychological issue similar to people that don't want to ride on trails with "exposure" as in a drop-off on the side, even when there is plenty of trail tread. So if trees are "close", even if there is no actual danger, maybe that's too much for some?


Like that 5' drop that's actually just 2', or that 45 degree ski slope that's actually more like 30 degrees?


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Nat said:


> We have tight trees out here on the west coast too:
> 
> View attachment 1288639
> 
> ...


I've ridden in Bend. The gap in those two pictures are probably the two sets of trees that are the closest together anywhere in in Oregon east of the Cascades. And there is nothing on the trail before or after those two sets of trees. The trails in Bend are probably THE most obstacle free trails I've ridden anywhere in the US. Even in the Midwest which lacks rocks and boulders due to glaciers flattening the land, the foliage overgrowth next to trails is thicker.

You need to add in other obstacles such as a slick, off-camber drop and/or a boulder on one side to be even able to start conceiving of situations that I mention in which you can't "swim" your bars between two trees.

*Some questions for you:* so you might be able to better answer your own question from a mathematical standpoint.

What percentage of your trail mileage in Bend is lined with tree, boulders, and other obstacles next to the trail?
How does that compare to trails on the East Coast?
What level of difference in this metric between specific East Coast trails and Bend trails would rise to a difference that is statistically significant? 
What level of statistically significance might warrant running a narrower handlebar?

I suggest you actually go ride on the East Coast before prognosticating about situations you've never seen. I don't imagine you would think that you could advise others about how to climb Mount Everest even though the process for doing so isn't really a secret anymore. There is a lot that is clear to me that you don't seem to be able to visualize about riding on the East Coast.

Finally, you confuse what people can do versus what they would prefer to do. I personally would prefer to be able to think less about having to maneuver my overly wide handlebars even though I "could" do that. I "can", but I DON'T WANT TO.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Spectre said:


> I suggest you actually go ride on the East Coast before prognosticating about situations you've never seen.


How about you (or anyone) show me since I'm not about to travel to the east coast for this. Let's see the video and maybe I'll change my mind.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Man, some of you folks are willing to leap through a lot of mental hoops to justify the fact that you are a curmudgeon. Just own up to being a salty old stick-in-the-mud and be happy that there's an endless supply of dinky hotdog bars for you to enjoy.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> Man, some of you folks are willing to leap through a lot of mental hoops to justify the fact that you are a curmudgeon. Just own up to being a salty old stick-in-the-mud and be happy that there's an endless supply of dinky hotdog bars for you to enjoy.


You might question who is the curmudgeon. I run 775mm wide bars. Nothing to prove on my end; just opening your eyes to the fact that not everyone in the world is exactly like you or in your situation.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Nat said:


> That there is EXACTLY where I was going with this. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. _*People post like it's physically impossible to maneuver a bike with a wider bar through the trees on the east coast, as if you're going through a hard tunnel*_.


Who said that? You are being overly-dramatic.

Have you thought to consider WHY it is almost always folks from the East Coast that mention wide bars being an issue sometimes? Are they just worse at going through tight trees (even though they have more of them)?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

This brings up an important question, are some people too tall for the trails? Like branches and fallen trees? Do they have to ride low bikes to make it work?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Jayem said:


> Do they have to ride low bikes to make it work?


Yeah, this is why I miss bikes with 7" high BBs.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Jayem said:


> This brings up an important question, are some people too tall for the trails? Like branches and fallen trees? Do they have to ride low bikes to make it work?


I would want to know whether those tall people are more or less likely to ride trails on which they might get clotheslined. And if they have actually gotten clotheslined, whether mental capacity correlates with their behavior of riding that trail again in the same manner.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Nat said:


> We have tight trees out here on the west coast too:
> 
> View attachment 1288639
> 
> ...


Did anyone notice how the bark is worn off of those trees, almost like they've been hit a few thousand times? Or how those wide bars aren't fitting through them? I'd bet that my 620mm bar would fit. At speed. With room to spare.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

MattiThundrrr said:


> I'd bet that my 620mm bar would fit. At speed. With room to spare.


I'd bet that a 250mm wide bar would fit with even more room!

Yes, I would advise every rider in the area to cut their handlebar down to little nubs so they can clear that ONE treegate.

On that note, I'd bet that there are some rocks a few feet down the trail with scars from pedals on them that would be in much better shape if bikes at 600mm high bottom brackets and 130mm cranks.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> I'd bet that a 250mm wide bar would fit with even more room!
> 
> Yes, I would advise every rider in the area to cut their handlebar down to little nubs so they can clear that ONE treegate.
> 
> On that note, I'd bet that there are some rocks a few feet down the trail with scars from pedals on them that would be in much better shape if bikes at 600mm high bottom brackets and 130mm cranks.


Appeal to Extremes Fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

It also ignores all the previous posts about other trails, here in the east, which have frequent gates like that. I was pointing out the irony that Nat's post in opposition to narrow bars had evidence of why they might be useful to some. 

I also would like to repeat that I'm not opposed to 900" bars on your bike, but I will defend my right to use whatever bars I feel like having on there. I almost bought some bar ends today, purple anno, just because I could. Also, I will defend your right to any bar you choose, except drop bars. They're just stupid.


----------



## atarione (Aug 24, 2018)

pfft wide// narrow?? .. it is all about dem riser bars.. I got me some 50mm rise Deity Highside 760mm wide bars on my trance.. ok actually I like wider bars I'm 6'3" with pretty long arms much happier with wider bars... my back on the other hand is much happier why risers bars vs flat bars.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

kapusta said:


> Who said that? You are being overly-dramatic.
> 
> Have you thought to consider WHY it is almost always folks from the East Coast that mention wide bars being an issue sometimes? Are they just worse at going through tight trees (even though they have more of them)?


Okay, here you go:



33red said:


> I ride narrow trails so 800 are plain impossible.





Tristan Wolf said:


> I dislike both the way I feel on bars wider than 700mm and how it makes very narrow sigle tracks feel very scary.





A/C in Az said:


> I hate the current trend of wide bars. I think it is for all the weight weenies who have no upper body strength. I prefer the quick response I get from my narrow bars. I can't cut the oem bars because they are too fat for the brakes at the point where I would cut, so I buy the <$50 carbon bars on Amazon that are push up width for me. Young kids always comment about my narrow bars being "old school" but I don't care what anyone thinks. It's MY bike and I will modify it to suit/ fit me best. If I ever sell a bike, I have the oem bars and stems to restore it to original; oh, I also go with a 30 to 50mm stem with my narrow bars. I just don't get why kids complain their bikes are too twitchy with a short stem and narrow bars. They just don't have any arm strength or muscles, I guess.....





Schulze said:


> The tree gates on them are narrow, almost impossible to ride, though some people claim they like the challenge. With 800mm bars set against these gaps, theres 20-30mm of bar overlapping each tree, and both side have bark ripped off from failed attempts. That's tight enough. Next time you're in Texas, try to hit Pedernales State Park, Juniper Ridge trail. You won't be getting the ROTJ speeder effect.





Tristan Wolf said:


> I actually crashed twice because I hit bar against the tree on one of my favorite super-narrow trails. And that was with „only" 720mm width. And I had been on that trail at least 100 times.


I may have gotten caught up in the escalating drama of this place but this quote is as triggered as it gets:



kapusta said:


> For the love of God!
> 
> Is it really THAT hard to believe that some people ride in places with tight trees that they find easier to navigate with narrower bars?
> 
> ...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> It also ignores all the previous posts about other trails, here in the east, which have frequent gates like that. I was pointing out the irony that Nat's post in opposition to narrow bars had evidence of why they might be useful to some.
> 
> I also would like to repeat that I'm not opposed to 900" bars on your bike, but I will defend my right to use whatever bars I feel like having on there. I almost bought some bar ends today, purple anno, just because I could. Also, I will defend your right to any bar you choose, except drop bars. They're just stupid.


I never said "don't use narrow bars." I don't give a damn what you use, including drop bars or alt-bars. All I wanted is for someone to show me an example of one of these super tight trails where it would be worth compromising the handling of your bike to accommodate the tight trees and then you guys all went freaking out.

Irony? How so? According to Spectre I just showed you the two tightest spots anywhere in Oregon. Also according to Spectre the east coast has tight spots on only a little more than 5% of the trails. Does it make sense to you to go to a narrower bar just because of a few tree gates? Personally, I wouldn't. You can if you want. Knock yourself out.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Nino Schurter uses a 680. Maybe someone should let him know his results would likely by better if he went wider?
<sarcasm>

There obviously is no "right" width, and arguments to the effect are a fools folly. "The "XXX Coast" needs certain bars to match the trails? Good lord.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

robbnj said:


> Nino Schurter uses a 680. Maybe someone should let him know his results would likely by better if he went wider?
> <sarcasm>
> 
> There obviously is no "right" width, and arguments to the effect are a fools folly. "The "XXX Coast" needs certain bars to match the trails? Good lord.


He also rides a bike with a 73.8 STA. Someone should tell him its not steep enough.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Nat said:


> Okay, here you go:


OK, ONE of those (the first) is SORT OF saying what you are claiming. The others are not. Someone else nailed it: you are engaged in an Appealing to the Extremes Fallacy.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

robbnj said:


> Nino Schurter uses a 680. Maybe someone should let him know his results would likely by better if he went wider?
> <sarcasm>


Holy [email protected], I'll bet Nino Schurter has no clue that he could be like 5% faster if he wasn't such a "curmudgeon" and took some "advice" from the experts on the MTBR forums


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Forest Rider said:


> *shakes head*


Clarification. No reason for myself to run handlebars narrower than 775mm on the West Coast. What works for others will vary.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

robbnj said:


> Nino Schurter uses a 680. Maybe someone should let him know his results would likely by better if he went wider?
> <sarcasm>


I don't think anyone suggested wider bars would make you a faster XC racer. Most people here aren't on full XC race bikes with -25° stems either.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

RS VR6 said:


> He also rides a bike with a 73.8 STA. Someone should tell him its not steep enough.


That's pretty steep for an XC bike. It's pretty slack for a 170mm enduro bike. A bit of nuance awareness would go a long way on this forum.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

jeremy3220 said:


> _a bit of nuance awareness would go a long way on this forum._


bingo


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

233 posts, who won?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jcd46 said:


> 233 posts, who won?


Everyone who didn't read this thread.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

The supporters of wide bars win. But also there are winners that don't like wide bars.
ding ding ding, all winners.

Sorry, I misspelled whiner. LOL


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

jcd46 said:


> 233 posts, who won?


Pfft, we are heading non-stop to at least 785. 800 maybe even.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

scottzg said:


> Everyone who didn't read this thread.


FTW

(For The Win) to the uninitiated...


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 21, 2012)

I don't care how wide you like your bars. Not even a little bit. What does piss me off is people altering the trail to fit their wide bars. My local trail system has a tree gap that is easily ridden with 800mm+ bars. If you suck, you may have to slow down. Now people are making a B route to avoid the gap. Bullshit? In my opinion, yes.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Spectre said:


> Some context to start off for anyone just joining this conversation:
> in the New York City metro area for 14 years & rode in NY/NJ/CT/PA/RI/MA for 11 years.
> 
> 3. My bar width during the 32 years that I have been riding mountain bikes have ranged from 540mm to 800mm.
> ...


That range on point 3 is what I'd expect for bikes from current and going back to the late 1980's or so. 
That describes my 91 HardRock that looks ridiculously narrow these days to the 780 my Marin was delivered with that looked clownish but didn't feel bad. I've sized down and have cf bar on it now feeling like it's the sweet spot for me.

As for trying to figure out others on their prefs or comments, that's a mystery of Brain Soup not worth a lot or investigation save the psychology students in school.
Some describe what they like and works for them trying to be helpful, others feel what they have and chose is the Only way to go for Everybody or We are ALL doing it Wrong! 

The debaters bring it to pass time locked in their den while their mother-in-law is visiting. They're in hiding and will argue about the time it takes satin latex paint to dry at 71 degrees, 48% humidity with the wind blowing from the South-west at 7 mph, 14:33 CST.





Jayem said:


> This brings up an important question, are some people too tall for the trails? Like branches and fallen trees? Do they have to ride low bikes to make it work?


The secret is out dang - it 
Thanks loads !!

Letting a bit of air pressure out of my tires enables me to ride the Enchanted Munchkin Forest sans cranial wracking. 
Guess I'll being seeing everyone now that it's out of the bag... :madman:

_*WHO WON ?
Everyone who didn't read this thread.*_



shekky said:


> FTW
> 
> (For The Win) to the uninitiated...


Seconded 
(#2 endorsement) to the uninitiated :lol:


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

jcd46 said:


> 233 posts, who won?


We haven't talk about when Road bike will come with 70/80 cm wide bars yet.......


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

fokof said:


> We haven't talk about when Road bike will come with 70/80 cm wide bars yet.......


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

That looks like a well thought out setup, for its intended use. I'd be pulling out the hacksaw too if I were riding through dense traffic.


----------



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

ninjichor said:


> That looks like a well thought out setup, for its intended use.


Posing in front of the coffee shop?


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

robbnj said:


> View attachment 1289467


I said 70/80 cm not 7/8 cm


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

https://bikerumor.com/2019/03/12/da...ebar-is-ultralight-super-wide-indestructible/

50cm , that's a start !

Can't wait for the 80cm models !!!!!


----------



## thartter (Sep 17, 2017)

Teufelhunde said:


> Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


I went from 660 mm bars on a 2011 bike to 780 mm when I updated to a 2018 bike. It probably took about 35-40 rides before I came to like them enough to stop considering cutting them down. I ride alot of tight, twisty trails with trees all around and I'll admit that even after riding the bike for 1.5 years I still scrape off the skin on my pinky knuckles every other ride or so, and that never used to happen with the 660 bars.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

thartter said:


> I went from 660 mm bars on a 2011 bike to 780 mm when I updated to a 2018 bike. It probably took about 35-40 rides before I came to like them enough to stop considering cutting them down. I ride alot of tight, twisty trails with trees all around and I'll admit that even after riding the bike for 1.5 years I still scrape off the skin on my pinky knuckles every other ride or so, and that never used to happen with the 660 bars.


THAT is probably the most realistic post in this entire thread. Sometimes there's no perfect. Pick your poison.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

rtsideup said:


> I don't care how wide you like your bars. Not even a little bit. What does piss me off is people altering the trail to fit their wide bars. My local trail system has a tree gap that is easily ridden with 800mm+ bars. If you suck, you may have to slow down. Now people are making a B route to avoid the gap. Bullshit? In my opinion, yes.


by easily, like ride right though there, or do you mean you have to A. you have to stop and shimmy, or B. have to wheelie and X up? both of those most people would not describe as easy.






I can X up, and I am decent rider, have numerous KOMs riding up , down and across Cat 1 XC racer years ago used to race BMX.

I still find tight trees annoying flow breaker and go and cut out apex trees, and tree choke points where a B line doesnt form because trails are just constructs and made up things and honestly has anyone ever rode a trail and been excited about dodging trees with their handlebars? I also could careless when people B line ****, and I B line **** when the trail is places in a Fing stupid spot where a B-line is more fun for me. I usually never do it just for the sake of speed but if I was in actual race you bet I would if it was nt taped.

Basically IMO claiming tight tree choke point is a good or fun Technical Trail Feature is silly IMO, I have been BMXing since 91 and MTBing on singletrack since 94 and never once have I heard someone excited about how they cleared some tight tree gaps....

I have the same feelings about **** like 'guide" stones which while the intent is typically trail preservation is actually leads to shitty unflowly un correctable trail that ends up wider than a trail with out guide stonees, who other topic but long story short a trail doesnt need things beside it choke people's speed down, especially intentionally.


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

My Fuel has a 750mm bar (I think) and it’s fine. I highly doubt I’ll ever replace it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

If a tree gate is so narrow that it is impossible to ride through at all with what is considered a wide handlebar, that was a lousy line to pick when routing the trail in the first place. Maybe the trail was chosen by hikers decades before mountain bikes starting using them, maybe deer chose that line. Either way, it should be rerouted if it's literally impossible to ride.

On the other hand, if people are sanitizing the trail because tight spacingeans they can't brap their Enduro bro e-bikes through every inch of the trail mach6, those people suck.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> If a tree gate is so narrow that it is impossible to ride through at all with what is considered a wide handlebar, that was a lousy line to pick when routing the trail in the first place. .


Choke point tree gaps that someone included in the trail routing simply because it was narrow do really wreck the flow. There were some trails nearby that were constructed this way by older bikers; I suppose it was their idea of a fun challenge. A lot of those trails developed ride-arounds that have become the new de facto route and some of the trees just got cut out by someone with a saw.



BushwackerinPA said:


>


Where (in what state) is this trail? Is it fairly representative of the tree density there?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

jcd46 said:


> 233 posts, who won?


I did.

Now where's my prize beer?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Spectre said:


> Clarification. No reason for myself to run handlebars narrower than 775mm on the West Coast. What works for others will vary.


Back 20 years ago, the trails up at places like Galbraith or Lake Sawyer were quite a bit narrower with close trees. I doubt wide bars would have worked very well on those trails at that time.

No problem running wide bars around here today. Most trails in our area don't have the narrow clearances that they used to.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Time to change the thread from "Who Doesn't Like Wide Bars" to "Who Doesn't Like Narrow Trails"! Yaay, everyone can submit a new genius opinion!


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Time to change the thread from "Who Doesn't Like Wide Bars" to "Who Doesn't Like Narrow Trails"! Yaay, everyone can submit a new genius opinion!


I think we need to add in narrow/wide chainrings just to invite more confusion.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

It's damned unusual. Rode my BMX today, which has wider bars than my MTB, and my hands were pushed all the way to the outside of the grips, as opposed to jammed in the middle of the bar when on the mountain bike. Could the difference in riding position (always on my feet on the BMX, leaning forward over the bars) change my hand position that much?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> as opposed to jammed in the middle of the bar when on the mountain bike


Your hands are next to the stem?


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Nat said:


> Your hands are next to the stem?


I'm still on the grips, you nincompoop! lol


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Grips, you nincompoop! lol


Then type what you mean from now on! Jesus.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Nat said:


> Then type what you mean from now on! Jesus.


As long as your name is Jesus!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> As long as your name is Jesus!


You may refer to me as Jesus.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Nat said:


> Choke point tree gaps that someone included in the trail routing simply because it was narrow do really wreck the flow. There were some trails nearby that were constructed this way by older bikers; I suppose it was their idea of a fun challenge. A lot of those trails developed ride-arounds that have become the new de facto route and some of the trees just got cut out by someone with a saw.
> 
> Where (in what state) is this trail? Is it fairly representative of the tree density there?


northern Vermont at place called Cady's Falls. This is literally the only place that I need to X up to ride though with 760mm bars with that said though enduro ish bike have been a thing here since the mid 00s, and the trails are generally built with the idea of momentuem being held in mind. IE most of the trails got cut wide prior to me moving here in 2009.

If you want to go watch the video from the start it would give you an idea of what type of riding it is, I would describe it as technical XC to Enduro built in new school way with primitive tools IE no machine built trails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Curveball said:


> I did.
> 
> Now where's my prize beer?


It's at the end of that trail with all the 721mm tree gates.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

chazpat said:


> It's at the end of that trail with all the 721mm tree gates.


LOL!

Good one Chaz!


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

18-22" wide with 5" of rise and a nice springy cushy seat.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Time to change the thread from "Who Doesn't Like Wide Bars" to "Who Doesn't Like Narrow Trails"! Yaay, everyone can submit a new genius opinion!


I literally usually never do that.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

BushwackerinPA said:


> northern Vermont at place called Cady's Falls. This is literally the only place that I need to X up to ride though with 760mm bars with that said though enduro ish bike have been a thing here since the mid 00s, and the trails are generally built with the idea of momentuem being held in mind. IE most of the trails got cut wide prior to me moving here in 2009.
> 
> If you want to go watch the video from the start it would give you an idea of what type of riding it is, I would describe it as technical XC to Enduro built in new school way with primitive tools IE no machine built trails.


Thanks. Nice work on the x-up, by the way. Very smooth.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

jcd46 said:


> 233 posts, who won?


I did because I'm the only person who listed a legitimate reason for tree gates.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Schulze said:


> I did because I'm the only person who listed a legitimate reason for tree gates.


Wow. Who knew that the way to win a "Wide Bars" thread was to justify tree gates. No wonder I suck at internetting. That, and I can't find the SARCASM button.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

Yes, I am pretty amazing.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Schulze said:


> Yes, I am pretty amazing.


Your cashier's check will be delivered sometime this week by my Nigerian Prince. If you deposit it in your account, We will triple your winnings, after the will is signed.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

To each his or her own, but I’m 5’7 and I ride 40mm rise 740mm Renthal FatBar Lites cut down to 700mm with a 40mm stem. My back and wrists thank me. Super wide bars force all of your body position to be bent over low and weight forward. Maybe ok for young XC riders who climb all the time, but not for semi old folk like me who like to descend at speed. Wide bars are not good for my back or wrists. I like to get my weight back over the rear wheel on steep descents. With wide bars, my weight is always forward over the bars, not where I want it on steep fast or technical descents. I also like quick but stable handling, which is why I have a 64* HTA and longer wheelbase, (for my size s frame) and long travel. Wide bars make sense for tall people or people with an ape like reach, but not for me.:cornut:


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Shredman, you still rocking those seat dingle balls?


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Shredman, you still rocking those seat dingle balls?


LMAO, no. The last time I replaced my seat, I left them off. Who knows, one day I may put them back on though. Pic from Downieville.:thumbsup:


----------



## mr_chrome (Jan 17, 2005)

I was skeptical about changing to wider bars after riding for about 8 years with 680 mm bars but at the same time, I had shortened my stem from 105+ to 70 mm - that felt good.....then I finally switched to 740 mm bars I picked up at a close-out sale along with a 50 mm stem, and that change felt good.......most people have only mentioned changing bar widths here but shortening the stem while widening the bars makes a difference......


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

mr_chrome said:


> I was skeptical about changing to wider bars after riding for about 8 years with 680 mm bars but at the same time, I had shortened my stem from 105+ to 70 mm - that felt good.....then I finally switched to 740 mm bars I picked up at a close-out sale along with a 50 mm stem, and that change felt good.......most people have only mentioned changing bar widths here but shortening the stem while widening the bars makes a difference......


I think it's implied, well understood, and even assumed by almost all that the two go hand in hand. I don't know of anyone (although I am sure there are some) rocking an 800 bar with anything much longer than a 50mm stem.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Jayem said:


> I hear people say this, but I'd really like to see the videos of it. I have to wonder if it's really an issue, or whether it's a perception thing.


It's really tight trees here on Long Island. We have few terrain features such as rocks, steep and long climbs and descents (well, none of those really), but lots of dense wooded areas, so the trail designers make it interesting and fun by making the single track tight and twisty. Not every trail and only some spots on certain trails. But it can be tight.

I just cut my bars down to 700 from 750 after hitting a tree at speed that ejected me onto the ground. I'm still sore 3 weeks later, couldn't ride for that past 2, ribs and L knee. Done with the tight squeezes and the bike handles fine at 700


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Teufelhunde said:


> Am I the only one NOT liking the wide bars on modern mountain bikes? I tried to acclimate myself to them, but getting ready to break out the hacksaw.......


All mine are chopped. Around 700 for trail, 600 for XC.


----------



## tony92231 (Oct 13, 2015)

The term "wide bars" is a relative term. Whats wide for one person, may not be wide for another. Depending on how long your arms are, how wide your shoulers are, and how long your torso is can play a factor in how wide you like your handlebars. Above all, just whatever feels better to you. Like a lot of other things, it's personal preferance


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

tony92231 said:


> The term "wide bars" is a relative term. Whats wide for one person, may not be wide for another. Depending on how long your arms are, how wide your shoulers are, and how long your torso is can play a factor in how wide you like your handlebars. Above all, just whatever feels better to you. Like a lot of other things, it's personal preferance


Stop being so reasonable. You'll never fit in here.

PS I like your avatar, cute, but he should smile more


----------



## Evintos (Jun 14, 2008)

*Edit: Sorry, it's looking like I'm about to derail the thread. Started a new thread in proper forum category new thread here. I can't find a delete post option for this post.
*
Thought I'd ask for advice here rather than start a new thread.

Looking to go with 760mm bar (a compromise due to trees) and was wondering what a good stem length would be to dull out the steering sensitivity. Reading around it seems like most people go with a 50-60mm stem at 740-760mm bar widths. The formula ((10mm decrease of stem per 20mm increase of bar)I found online for converting width/stem length seems really off (which would give me a 15mm stem?).

Looking to "dull" the steering input sensitivity about 10%. Is there a formula to calculate something like this?

[HR][/HR]
*Current:* 640mm riser bar (came with bike), 75mm stem (came with bike). XC bike, hardtail. Height 6'1", shoulder width 20". Found steering pretty twitchy on a trail, was fine on a road. Comfort fine, no wrist, back or neck pain with this setup during 4 hour trail ride. No comfort issues on a 6 hour road ride either.

Thanks for any advice!


----------



## SikeMo (Mar 17, 2013)

Bar width is a function of shoulder width and/or height and stem length should be tailored to form an optimal lever arm from the bottom bracket. Saying one size is better than another is nonsense. That said, my optimal bar width is around 810mm, but anything wider than 780mm is too much, due to trees, imo.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Evintos said:


> Thought I'd ask for advice here rather than start a new thread.
> 
> Looking to go with 760mm bar (a compromise due to trees) and was wondering what a good stem length would be to dull out the steering sensitivity. Reading around it seems like most people go with a 50-60mm stem at 740-760mm bar widths. The formula ((10mm decrease of stem per 20mm increase of bar)I found online for converting width/stem length seems really off (which would give me a 15mm stem?).
> 
> Looking to "dull" the steering input sensitivity about 10%. Is there a formula to calculate something like this?


That formula has nothing to do with steering sensitivity, it is only to keep the effective reach the same with a given bar/stem combination. For reduced steering you need wider bars, more rake offset, increased wheel base or a slacker head tube. Stem length is not a factor - longer stem/bar increases reach, shorter reduces reach. You may be able to swap out your lowers to get more rake. Personally, I'd just get used to it, or get a longer slacker bike if it is that big of a deal for you.


----------



## Evintos (Jun 14, 2008)

Sorry, it's looking like I'm about to derail the thread. Started a new thread in proper forum category new thread here. I can't find a delete post option for my other post and this one.


----------



## smoothmoose (Jun 8, 2008)

Answer if obvious. Everyone wears size 13 shoes, so therefore everyone should run 800mm bars. One size fits ALL!

Seriously though, I run 760mm bars on my trail bike for the past 2 years and my hands keep creeping inwards on the bar leaving 1-2cm off each end. I think it's time I trim them down to 740mm maybe even narrower.

For the folks that keep advocating wider is better...try this...do push ups with your arms 800mm apart and compare it to 750 and 700. I suspect for a lot of people they will feel weaker and do less push-ups @800mm.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Catmandoo said:


> It's really tight trees here on Long Island. We have few terrain features such as rocks, steep and long climbs and descents (well, none of those really), but lots of dense wooded areas, so the trail designers make it interesting and fun by making the single track tight and twisty. Not every trail and only some spots on certain trails. But it can be tight.


Got any video?


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I raise the bullshit flag on all of this "trees are too tight" thing.

I have been running 800s for years through the most densely forested trails of BC and Alberta. Trails with names like "Black Forest", for self explanatory reasons. On TrailForks, this Fernie BC trail is described as being "*[a] narrow section of single track through dense trees* with a steep exit for a more exciting way to connect to View Trail." The trees are no tighter elsewhere than where I bike. These are HEAVILY forested areas. I do just fine with 800s, as does everyone I know.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I raise the bullshit flag on all of this "trees are too tight" thing.
> 
> I have been running 800s for years through the most densely forested trails of BC and Alberta. Trails with names like "Black Forest", for self explanatory reasons. On TrailForks, this Fernie BC trail is described as being "*[a] narrow section of single track through dense trees* with a steep exit for a more exciting way to connect to View Trail." The trees are no tighter elsewhere than where I bike. These are HEAVILY forested areas. I do just fine with 800s, as does everyone I know.


I'm still looking for video to show what these guys are talking about. So far only BushwackerinPA linked a video to demonstrate and he masterfully rowed through the tight trees with his 760mm bars.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Nat said:


> I'm still looking for video to show what these guys are talking about. So far only BushwackerinPA linked a video to demonstrate and he masterfully rowed through the tight trees with his 760mm bars.


Don't get me wrong - I have to swim/row the odd time too, but big effin deal. It's a small price to pay, and it's a dead simple technique.

The bar width thing must be a regional thing. Nobody I know where I am cuts their bar.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Don't get me wrong - I have to swim/row the odd time too, but big effin deal. It's a small price to pay, and it's a dead simple technique.
> 
> The bar width thing must be a regional thing. Nobody I know where I am cuts their bar.


Same here. When someone can show me what their tight trees looks like then maybe I'll be convinced otherwise.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

With how fast clear cutting trees is happening it won’t be long and you can ride as wide a bar as you want,


/thread.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Now that we started getting some snow and the swamps freezing, our trails that weave through the boreal forests are starting to become accessible. On most of my rides there are some pinch points where I get to weave my bars through the trees. It's fun. Tonight was 810mm bars (at night). One of these is called "The Needle" (pictured). It's not really the tightest spot, since it's kind of in the open and straight, but we got plenty that are in turns weaving back and forth. Makes it super interesting, especially at night.

My friend Paul modified the picture, he's fanatical about people not riding around this feature on the trail he made


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Don't get me wrong - I have to swim/row the odd time too, but big effin deal. It's a small price to pay, and it's a dead simple technique.
> 
> The bar width thing must be a regional thing. Nobody I know where I am cuts their bar.


A few people told me Darrington (the new DH area in mid-Washington) was tight on Skyline and that I had to watch for the trees at speed. Naw, nothing out of the ordinary. The midwest trails I've ridden loop back on themselves crazy and they'll fit 5 miles or more of trail in half a mile square, you are inevitably close to trees and when you try to keep speed up they are zooming past, but I think the inclination is to think they are closer than they really are. The tightest stuff I ride is our boreal forest where I do have to weave my bars in some of the trees and due to the tech and other features, you can't go very fast anyway, so it's not like you are going to jedi-speeder-hook a tree or anything.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Jayem said:


> Now that we started getting some snow and the swamps freezing, our trails that weave through the boreal forests are starting to become accessible. On most of my rides there are some pinch points where I get to weave my bars through the trees. It's fun. Tonight was 810mm bars (at night). One of these is called "The Needle" (pictured). It's not really the tightest spot, since it's kind of in the open and straight, but we got plenty that are in turns weaving back and forth. Makes it super interesting, especially at night.
> 
> My friend Paul modified the picture, he's fanatical about people not riding around this feature on the trail he made
> 
> View attachment 1295151


Any rider would have to be blind not to see the BIG red X's and blatantly not follow the green arrow marker showing the correct trail route. Some people though.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I raise the bullshit flag on all of this "trees are too tight" thing.
> 
> I have been running 800s for years through the most densely forested trails of BC and Alberta. Trails with names like "Black Forest", for self explanatory reasons. On TrailForks, this Fernie BC trail is described as being "*[a] narrow section of single track through dense trees* with a steep exit for a more exciting way to connect to View Trail." The trees are no tighter elsewhere than where I bike. These are HEAVILY forested areas. I do just fine with 800s, as does everyone I know.


Here in Virginia a friend of mine bought an Enduro bike with 800mm bars. First ride on a familiar trail he jammed the bars directly between two trees. The bike came to a dead stop while he went over the bars with the bike was still upright stuck between the trees.

Of the few hundred miles of trails I've ridde in Virginia I'd say there's only about 5 or 6 spots where the trees are to close to get 800mm bars through. It's easy to weave them through but it sucks having to slow down to do it.

My current bars are 720 which is the widest I've ever had. I have 800s on the way in the mail now, can't wait to get them on the bike!


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Here in Virginia a friend of mine bought an Enduro bike with 800mm bars. First ride on a familiar trail he jammed the bars directly between two trees. The bike came to a dead stop while he went over the bars with the bike was still upright stuck between the trees.
> 
> Of the few hundred miles of trails I've ridde in Virginia I'd say there's only about 5 or 6 spots where the trees are to close to get 800mm bars through. It's easy to weave them through but it sucks having to slow down to do it.
> 
> My current bars are 720 which is the widest I've ever had. I have 800s on the way in the mail now, can't wait to get them on the bike!


I've found it to be fairly common in Virginia, and anywhere else in the southeast would be similar. An wide open trail can become impenetrable just between April to July.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

sapva said:


> I've found it to be fairly common in Virginia, and anywhere else in the southeast would be similar. An wide open trail can become impenetrable just between April to July.


The Harrisonburg backcountry trails seriously get overgrown in summer! Some of the newly built trails they deliberately cleared very wide and they've been good to ride all year. Most people avoid the less trafficked backcountry trails when they get overgrown but narrow bars definitely help keep your hands out of the thorns, wineberries and general overgrowth.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I am not disputing that there are situations where an 800mm bar may not comfortably fit through 2 trees. And I also suppose that the tone of some of my posts above may not have been appropriate (for which I apologize). 

What I was trying to say was with my anatomy, my bikes, my riding style and the terrain I usually ride, the cost of having to slow down and "swim" through a group of trees the odd time is greatly outweighed by all the advantages of a wide bar (again, advantages for me). 

If the riding position is uncomfortable, or if one discerns no noticeable benefit from using a wide bar, I can see that as being a reason to cut it. But I don't get the tightly treed thing as the principal basis, if in fact one feels there is otherwise a benefit from using a wide bar. And I suspect that at least some who cut it after encountering some tight trees the first or second time, may not have given the bar a chance to show why it came manufactured at 800mm in the first place, and what it is capable of at that width. 

Anyway, all this makes for great discussion, and the conclusion I draw from it is that what works for me, apparently does not work for (many) others, which is obviously fine.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

There's no place west of the Mississippi that has "densely forested" trails, in my experience. At least not compared to the mountains of eastern North America. The only thing I can think of that would fit the bill there are young aspen groves after a fire or clear cut, and the weaker trees haven't started dying off yet.

Your first encounter with a mountain laurel thicket in western North Carolina will show you what "densely forested" truly means.


----------



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

Le Duke said:


> There's no place west of the Mississippi that has "densely forested" trails, in my experience. At least not compared to the mountains of eastern North America. The only thing I can think of that would fit the bill there are young aspen groves after a fire or clear cut, and the weaker trees haven't started dying off yet.
> 
> Your first encounter with a mountain laurel thicket in western North Carolina will show you what "densely forested" truly means.


Manzanita forests can get pretty dense if left unchecked


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> There's no place west of the Mississippi that has "densely forested" trails, in my experience. At least not compared to the mountains of eastern North America. The only thing I can think of that would fit the bill there are young aspen groves after a fire or clear cut, and the weaker trees haven't started dying off yet.
> 
> Your first encounter with a mountain laurel thicket in western North Carolina will show you what "densely forested" truly means.


IMO, you need to get out to more forests then. It can be impossible to move through the undergrowth here (way way west of the mississippi) unless you are on a trail..and even then, the trails can get so overgrown you can't ride them.

Sure, forests of most CO, drier stuff in NM and AZ at high altitude where you can just ride on top of the pine needles with no trail necessary, places where they've intentionally cleared a wide tread, etc., but there are plenty of dense undergrowth and forest areas in the west as well. Not everything is like SoCal or Bend. Plenty of tight places in the PacNW and others.

That said, the bigger forest areas tend to not have the "loop back on themselves" trails like back east, where miles are crammed into ridiculously small acreage.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I think he needs to get out more because right on the Mississippi and going westward especially the further south you go woods are impassable without a trail. And not maintained well enough and they become not rideable real fast. 

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Jayem said:


> My friend Paul modified the picture, he's fanatical about people not riding around this feature on the trail he made
> 
> View attachment 1295151


"Feature". Maybe they can't handle the excitement. It needs a B line for non pro riders anyway. We're not all Brandon Semenuk you know.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

mtnbkrmike said:


> If the riding position is uncomfortable, or if one discerns no noticeable benefit from using a wide bar, I can see that as being a reason to cut it.


There is one benefit of wide bars. It gives more room to move the brake levers inboard so they are not over the grips. And honestly that's the only reason I keep them as wide as 700mm. Have one bike chopped around 590 and having the brake levers over my knuckles is really annoying.


----------



## btl68 (Nov 18, 2010)

I can tell who was born well after MTB's came into being.:thumbsup:


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

I run narrow bars but around here , they have a tendency to Dumb down the trails , make them larger and smoother.

Some call it "flow" , I call it Boring.

Use to love those zigzag trails in dense wooden area.
I guess I'm getting old.....


----------



## ericridebike (Nov 23, 2016)

I was going through a box of old bike parts I had in the garage yesterday and found an old carbon bar I had on my early 90’s Trek Fuel. It looked like a bar for a kids bike. It is ~610mm. I have been riding a 750mm bar recently, but just installed a new Box carbon fiber bar that is 765mm. Doesn’t seem to be a noticeable difference between the 750 and 765. Can’t believe we used to ride those narrow bars.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

ericridebike said:


> I was going through a box of old bike parts I had in the garage yesterday and found an old carbon bar I had on my early 90's Trek Fuel. It looked like a bar for a kids bike. It is ~610mm. I have been riding a 750mm bar recently, but just installed a new Box carbon fiber bar that is 765mm. Doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference between the 750 and 765. Can't believe we used to ride those narrow bars.


I have a few of those too. Still good, potentially, for downtown urban assault bikes to be able to squeeze between lines of traffic. That said, I'm running an uncut 800mm Chromag Fubar 40 on my winter commuter, and finding it pretty much perfect (as are all the rest of my bikes with uncut 800mm bars).


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I have a couple of old, narrow flat bars in the garage. I use one as a cheater pipe and the other is now serving as a handle of a cooler.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> That said, I'm running an uncut 800mm Chromag Fubar 40 on my winter *commuter*, and finding it pretty much perfect (as are all the rest of my bikes with uncut 800mm bars).


How do you pass through car lanes and traffic with 800mm bars ?

Wondering.......


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

fokof said:


> How do you pass through car lanes and traffic with 800mm bars ?
> 
> Wondering.......


3 feet bro


----------



## ericridebike (Nov 23, 2016)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I have a few of those too. Still good, potentially, for downtown urban assault bikes to be able to squeeze between lines of traffic. That said, I'm running an uncut 800mm Chromag Fubar 40 on my winter commuter, and finding it pretty much perfect (as are all the rest of my bikes with uncut 800mm bars).


It actually looks like it is about the same width of my 10 year old son's bike's bar. He may just get a carbon fiber upgrade.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

fokof said:


> How do you pass through car lanes and traffic with 800mm bars ?
> 
> Wondering.......


I would guess this depends a lot on where you are commuting.

Riding in NYC, I find even my 630mm bars can be an issue when trying to squeeze through stopped traffic. My bike with 460mm wide drops is much easier.

But where I live now, wide bars would be mostly a non-issue riding around town.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ericridebike said:


> I was going through a box of old bike parts I had in the garage yesterday and found an old carbon bar I had on my early 90's Trek Fuel. It looked like a bar for a kids bike. It is ~610mm. I have been riding a 750mm bar recently, but just installed a new Box carbon fiber bar that is 765mm. Doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference between the 750 and 765. Can't believe we used to ride those narrow bars.


How else are you gonna ride in handcuffs?? Seriously!!


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

fokof said:


> How do you pass through car lanes and traffic with 800mm bars ?
> 
> Wondering.......


I do it literally every day. That said, thankfully we have one of the best bike commuting pathway systems in the world. I can get from my house to work while staying on a beautiful high speed bike pathway running alongside a massive river that cuts through the downtown core, for 90% of the ride. So it's only the other 10% that I have to negotiate traffic. That said, zero issues cutting between lanes. 800mm is 31.5" wide. That's 2.5'. Plenty narrow enough to effortlessly weave through traffic in a 1.3 million person existence.

I read some of these posts and it makes me wonder what's up. I am 5'11". Granted, I am on the long and lanky side with a 35" sleeve and 34" inseam, but that's not out of the norm at all. I honestly don't get it. 800mm on the dirt or the asphalt seems about perfect to me. Anything narrower and I am looking for more width while riding.

Oh well. At least we all seem to know what we want, which is better than a bunch of wishy-washiness.


----------



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

I'm a big fan of wide bars off road but they don't make much sense for pavement to me.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm a big fan of wide bars off road but they don't make much sense for pavement to me.


Legit point. That said, there wasn't enough room to get my pogies on my circa 2008 bar so there's that. My winter commuter is a Kona Unit that will see dirt soon.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm a big fan of wide bars off road but they don't make much sense for pavement to me.


For many it must be more about comfort over function. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason, provided you don't fool yourself into thinking wide bars are as fast or practical for all applications.


----------



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

sapva said:


> For many it must be more about comfort over function. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason, provided you don't fool yourself into thinking wide bars are as fast or practical for all applications.


For sure, if they're more comfortable and you're not worried so much about speed then that's the way to go. For myself narrower bars are actually more comfortable on smooth terrain (and faster), I like wide bars for the added control they offer over the rough stuff.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I do like wide bars; I’ve had them at 790mm for probably a decade now for all styles of mountain biking, but the law of diminishing returns applies.

My new Honzo came with 810mm bars and that, combined with the long reach that I’m not used to makes it feel a little gaudy. I’ll be cutting them down to 790mm for sure. I just don’t need any more leverage than that, and there are several local trails where I’m barely clearing the trees as it is in a few spots.

Another aspect about wide bars that I’ve noticed, that I never experienced in the days of narrow bars, is that a lot of times it’s very difficult to pass other trail users without either going off the trail or cutting it very close to making contact with them (and I do mean cases where they see me, I’ve slowed way down, and am courteously attempting to pass). I’ve even had times where someone has stepped aside, but it’s a narrow trail with a drop off on the other side, and I have to get off because I’ll clip the person otherwise.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm a big fan of wide bars off road but they don't make much sense for pavement to me.


I feel the same way.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm a big fan of wide bars off road but they don't make much sense for pavement to me.


Yep

Wondering why there is no 800mm drop bars for road bike .......


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

At the same time, you have to play AC/DC "Have a Drink on Me", starting at 0:04 to make the video end correctly.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

fokof said:


> Yep
> 
> Wondering why there is no 800mm drop bars for road bike .......


Some gravel drop bars are getting pretty fricken wide.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I don’t like them and I don’t even use them. I don’t like them because those coming at me with them force me off the trail.


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

Nat said:


> I have a couple of old, narrow flat bars in the garage. I use one as a cheater pipe and *the other is now serving as a handle of a cooler.*




Liking that idea.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Quote Originally Posted by edubfromktown View Post
Even with ~730mm bars I have my brake levers in an inch or so from where the handlebar grips start.



mack_turtle said:


> I thought this was how everyone set up their brake levers. Install grips, set lever so your index finger can wrap around the hooked end of the lever, angle down until just right, cinch bolt. Duplicate spacing and angle on the other side. 1" is a great starting point for average sized hands.


I think this is part of the problem with wider bars. And Jayem, you have very, very long arms, you can get away with 780mm. The dude at the bike shop told me I'm going to need longer bars than 700mm for my new AM HT build. I didn't say anything, I'll try it out myself with 700mm, thank you very much...

I try to have the best of both worlds: hands at very edge of bars on the (usually short 115mm grips), brake lever all the way close to the grips on 700mm bars. That way if things get sketchy I can do two fingers on the brakes, everything is close together. If someone has longer bars and/or grips, like 140-150mm grips, then you can't put your hands on the outside and still curve them back to the brake levers, that's the problem. You can but it's unnatural and annoying. And my fingers are pretty long for my height. I want a natural feel for both the grips on the edge and the brake levers, you can't get that on a wider bar unless you have Jayem's super long arms.

Having said that, I had 630mm bars on a now-shelved 26" and climbing was horrible. Downhill was not great either but the bars were not as bad downhill as uphill. For me 700mm seems very good for someone 5'8" and cannot slam-dunk a basketball down a 10-foot hoop.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

richj8990 said:


> Having said that, I had 630mm bars on a now-shelved 26" and climbing was horrible. Downhill was not great either but the bars were not as bad downhill as uphill. For me 700mm seems very good for someone 5'8" and cannot slam-dunk a basketball down a 10-foot hoop.


FWIW, I think there can be a lot of variation in what bar width works for any given person based on body dimensions, preference, and past experience. I'm 5'9" and a 775mm (or 780mm) width seems to work great for me. I put on a 740 mm bar when I rebuilt a 90's hardtail and 740mm bars now feel pretty narrow to me. That's coming from someone who used to ride 560 mm bars back in the 90's.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Spectre said:


> FWIW, I think there can be a lot of variation in what bar width works for any given person based on body dimensions, preference, and past experience. I'm 5'9" and a 775mm (or 780mm) width seems to work great for me. I put on a 740 mm bar when I rebuilt a 90's hardtail and 740mm bars now feel pretty narrow to me. That's coming from someone who used to ride 560 mm bars back in the 90's.


My Honzo came with what I believe was a 760mm bar. It's a nice 30th Anniversary bar that now decoratively sits on my fireplace mantle. My arms are long though - I buy shirts with a 35" sleeve length.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

This is a short but interesting article on if your handlebars are too wide or not:

https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/are-your-handlebars-too-wide

Basically they said if your shoulders are shrugged up close to your ears, if your elbows are closer in height to your shoulders than to the handlebars, and if you are getting shoulder soreness, then your handlebars are probably too wide. Conversely, if your forearms are just a bit angled up above the handlebars, maybe 10-20% (not 40%), and they are more or less even (perpendicular) with the handlebars, as in they are not having your elbows point out much beyond the handlebar's imaginary end line, then the bars are the right size.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

richj8990 said:


> That way if things get sketchy I can do two fingers on the brakes, everything is close together.


If I ever find myself needing more than one finger on the brake lever, there's something amiss with my brakes. I can comfortably modulate or lock up both brakes with one fingertip with a 760mm handlebar, and I am a solidly "medium" person. I would never compromise by sacrificing the control afforded me by this handlebar position because I fell behind on brake maintenance. one finger is all you ever need if you're doing it right. (TWSS)


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> If I ever find myself needing more than one finger on the brake lever, there's something amiss with my brakes.


I'd say something wrong with your finger. Not going to test this on my bike, but would be very surprised if I couldn't snap off a lever with one finger.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

sapva said:


> I'd say something wrong with your finger. Not going to test this on my bike, but would be very surprised if I couldn't snap off a lever with one finger.


if you can snap a brake lever off with one finger, how do you brake at all? why are your brake levers so fragile? are they manufactured from uncooked pasta? are we on the same page? I am confused.

to clarify, I find that my brakes are powerful enough that the pressure I can exert on the system with just one finger is plenty, so I can position my levers in a position where only one finger can pull them. if I found that I needed to start wrapping two fingers or my whole hand around the lever, there's something wrong with the brakes that caused them to lose power.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> if you can snap a brake lever off with one finger, how do you brake at all? why are your brake levers so fragile? are they manufactured from uncooked pasta? are we on the same page? I am confused.


Maybe same page, but different brake levers. And yes, the brakes should lock up with much less finger pressure. Just wondering why anyone uses more than one finger when one finger can exert far more force than most levers are designed to withstand. Psychological support I guess.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

yes, sapva. that's the point I was trying to make. someone suggested that it's better to set up your cockpit so you can panic-brake with two fingers. that's a bad habit and I don't think overall handling should be sacrificed because one has crappy brakes. the right approach is to fix or upgrade the brakes to something that inspires confidence with a single finger on the lever.


----------

