Why Did Road Bike Handlebars Get Wider?
06-04-18, 02:29 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times
in
569 Posts
Given the modern penchant for inaccuracy, we don't really know if the o.p. really means 2" or 2cm. I suspect the latter and don't think there is anything to see here. Racers routinely ride smaller bikes than are ideal (even by the standards of the past) for their physique in order to save weight. Bars from 1987 were as likely to be steel as not, especially on something like a Nishiki. You could save significant (sic) amounts of weight going to a smaller bar and smaller (steel) frame. That said, the bars on my new Trek 1.1 are immense. I thought it was just me, but every review I've seen of the 1.1 observes the same thing. I suspect this speaks to an earlier observation another poster made about wider bars being more stable. A Trek 1.1 is a race bike, no question, but there is racing and then there is racing. I don't know, there might be fewer of those horrific criterium pile-ups if the peloton rocked Trek style bars. Just wondering out loud ...
Among 8 year olds on BSOs I suppose.
I think it's basically fashion, possibly following high-wattage pro sprinters.
Similar in mtn biking, where super wide bars are "in", but in my area many cut their bars down to almost urban fixie dimensions
so they can ride past fire road gates.
Personally, I use narrow bars for aero advantage. A little less comfortable,
but if comfort was the goal, I'd ride a comfort bike.
06-04-18, 05:17 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times
in
1,025 Posts
Sometimes it sounds like people have these ideas about what different eras looked like that a simple look in an old catalog would correct.
06-06-18, 05:34 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times
in
740 Posts
They "got narrower?" What? You can get bars in a variety of sizes, no? I use 40 just as I did in the early '80's.
06-06-18, 09:38 AM
#29
Junior Member
OP: Yes, they have.
I bought my first good bike 7 years ago, a '86 Trek 400.
I got serious last year about biking and bought a '11 Bianchi Sempre.
The Sempre has 44cm bars. I haven't measured the stock bars on the Trek but they are MUCH narrower and not nearly as comfortable.
What's interesting (and funny to me) is folks talking about nutrition and fat in this thread, which has NOTHING to do with the width of your shoulders. Your frame is your frame, period. I just measured and my shoulders are 18" wide/45.72cm. Maybe I outta try 46cm bars?? Hmmm...
Gary
I bought my first good bike 7 years ago, a '86 Trek 400.
I got serious last year about biking and bought a '11 Bianchi Sempre.
The Sempre has 44cm bars. I haven't measured the stock bars on the Trek but they are MUCH narrower and not nearly as comfortable.
What's interesting (and funny to me) is folks talking about nutrition and fat in this thread, which has NOTHING to do with the width of your shoulders. Your frame is your frame, period. I just measured and my shoulders are 18" wide/45.72cm. Maybe I outta try 46cm bars?? Hmmm...
Gary
06-06-18, 10:00 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times
in
1,025 Posts
OP: Yes, they have.
I bought my first good bike 7 years ago, a '86 Trek 400.
I got serious last year about biking and bought a '11 Bianchi Sempre.
The Sempre has 44cm bars. I haven't measured the stock bars on the Trek but they are MUCH narrower and not nearly as comfortable.
What's interesting (and funny to me) is folks talking about nutrition and fat in this thread, which has NOTHING to do with the width of your shoulders. Your frame is your frame, period. I just measured and my shoulders are 18" wide/45.72cm. Maybe I outta try 46cm bars?? Hmmm...
Gary
I bought my first good bike 7 years ago, a '86 Trek 400.
I got serious last year about biking and bought a '11 Bianchi Sempre.
The Sempre has 44cm bars. I haven't measured the stock bars on the Trek but they are MUCH narrower and not nearly as comfortable.
What's interesting (and funny to me) is folks talking about nutrition and fat in this thread, which has NOTHING to do with the width of your shoulders. Your frame is your frame, period. I just measured and my shoulders are 18" wide/45.72cm. Maybe I outta try 46cm bars?? Hmmm...
Gary
How fat someone is relates to how close they can comfortably keep their upper arms to the side of their rib cages. Fat people with thick torsos can't keep their arms close to their sides and have a harder time with narrow bars. And people have been progressively fatter over the last 30 years.
06-06-18, 12:10 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,319
Bikes: 2012 Salsa Casseroll, 2009 Kona Blast
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 208 Times
in
146 Posts
Are you measuring to the center of the top of the humerus bone, or the outside width of your shoulders? It's the first one.
How fat someone is relates to how close they can comfortably keep their upper arms to the side of their rib cages. Fat people with thick torsos can't keep their arms close to their sides and have a harder time with narrow bars. And people have been progressively fatter over the last 30 years.
How fat someone is relates to how close they can comfortably keep their upper arms to the side of their rib cages. Fat people with thick torsos can't keep their arms close to their sides and have a harder time with narrow bars. And people have been progressively fatter over the last 30 years.
So, population is fatter in general, and cyclists getting older, you are likely to see bikes built more for comfort. A little shoulder or neck discomfort is maybe not such a big deal to a 16 year old cyclist, but a potential deal breaker to a 60 year old.
06-06-18, 05:59 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cypress TX
Posts: 1,179
Bikes: Salsa Fargo Ti, Cannondale CAAD9, Carbonello Fixed Gear, Specialized Epic Disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times
in
10 Posts
I've been riding since the early 80's and my bars have always been around 42cm ctc. It could be that I've built up most of my bikes from frames and that is just what I prefer. The shapes have gotten much better for me now though. Less drop and more comfortable bends.
06-07-18, 01:23 AM
#34
Senior Member
The simple reason was cost. In those days when the dollar was strong and Asian currencies weak, raw materials were expensive. Narrow bars required less metal, and were therefore cheaper to make.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wfournier
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
10
09-12-11 05:40 PM
