RandomlyWest

What I suspected is actually true: the handlebars on my 2012 Scott Speedster are 2" wider (!) than the bars on my 1987 Nishiki Sport. My 2016 Fuji Tread also has bars 2" wider than the Nishiki. Was the move to wider road bike handlebars somehow related to the shift toward carbon and composite frames, and threadless headsets?

I actually think narrower bars make for nimbler handling, especially when taking off from a stop.

Happy Feet

Don't you find there is more choice in just about every aspect of life from 1987? I suspect wider bars are more stable which appeals to more beginning level riders who tend to buy more of even the expensive bikes these days which makes them a good default bar to begin with. The good news is you can retrofit almost any configuration imaginable these days.

While nimble may seem good off the start, an overall twitchy bike can be a bit of a pita for someone just wanting to relax and ride.

TimothyH

Wider bars open the chest for better breathing.

I'm not saying this is the reason, just that this is one of the many possible reasons why bars might be wider.

I'm not convinced that bars are actually wider based on a three bike sample size.

The only thing we can conclude with certainty is that the OP owns three bikes, two of which are newer and have wider handlebars relative to the third.


-Tim-

eja_ bottecchia

MRT2

Yes, road handlebars are wider than back in the day, and that is a good thing. Better control, and at least in my case, much more comfortable. Far more natural for my arms to fall more or less the same width as my shoulders, than scrunched onto a narrow 38 cm bar. And it does open up the chest for better breathing. Give me 44, or even 46 cm bars.

Kontact 

I sorta doubt racers were using narrow bars in the '80s. This just seems like a cost cutting measure on the part of the bike companies then.

jefnvk

Can't stand old narrow bars, I have a few in my parts bin. 42cm for me, narrower than 40cm and my chest feels too compressed.

Troul 

weight of the widers bars do not support the modern local MUP competitors. It's targeting those that have money to spend or those that don't mind bike weight.

HTupolev

Like many changes in road bikes over time, I'm not sure there's any reason in particular. Rider performance and comfort is much less sensitive to handlebar width than many other fit aspects; most road riders can acclimate to correct-ish bars up to a couple inches apart with basically zero real difference, even people who'd panic over their seat height being off by a few millimeters.

There are some things that can force decisions to be made certain ways, i.e. high-trail geometries can feel floppy if you're not using a wide bar with a flat grip. That's why the more MTB-esque gravel bikes often have ultra-wide "drop" bars with tons of flair. But for the most part, in the road racing scene, I think it's just trends being trends and meandering about whatever the "true" optimal values are.

Nobody pays attention to stock handlebar spec, and a lot of those narrow bars that were coming on decent bikes were not particularly cheapo.

canklecat

Bars should be fitted to suit the rider's physique. Most successful road racers have been around 160 lbs or smaller, often much smaller. Narrower bars suit their shoulder width. Wider bars won't help them breathe better, not enough to offset the compromised aerodynamics from their armpits and extended elbows catching the breeze. With the exception of freaks of nature like Froome, most cyclists aren't faster with wingspreads like turkey vultures.

Bigger guys benefit from wider bars suited to their wider chests and shoulders. One of my friends is a big guy and likes his flared drops. He'd be cramped on my 40-42 cm wide drops. I'd be spread out like a condor on his bars.

Mountain bikes and hybrids have different handling needs, so wider bars may be better choices. One of my hybrids has fairly wide riser bars. Suits me for casual urban and suburban riding. I'm not averaging faster than 14 mph so aero isn't much of a factor. Usually. I do notice when I ride with a friend who's physically quite a bit smaller -- he's built more like a classic mountain specialist -- it's harder to keep up with him after he swapped his hybrids from wider flat bars to to narrower flipped albatross and North Roads bars. His upper arms are tucked while I'm catching the breeze. Makes a difference above 14 mph. He looks more comfortable too, not spread out on bars that were too wide for him.

exmechanic89

I generally think that bar width should match your shoulder width. So for me, I prefer 40cm bars - which is what I ride. The trend of super wide bars will eventually fade away imo, as bike manufacturers look to change things around again in their neverending quest towards planned obsolescense.

mcours2006

Yep. My steel bike from the 80's came with 38 cm bars. Size 54. My modern carbon bike comes with 42 cm bars. Also 54 cm. I split the difference and put a 40 cm bar on my aluminum bike.

Kontact 

Regardless of a the model, narrower, less popular bar sizes can probably be had at a deeper OEM discount.

Lighter people don't have narrow shoulders. I'm usually 145 and 5'4" tall - my shoulders are 42cm wide. I don't think it follows that most racers have narrow shoulders.

HTupolev

Those "narrow" sizes were not unpopular and weren't considered narrow at the time. A 58cm touring bike coming stock with 39cm handlebars was not something strange or unusual.

Kontact 

Well, either the OP's narrow bars in 1987 were narrow or they weren't. I know that buying bars that are shoulder width was definitely the style by 1987, so without knowing what size bike or how narrow that Nishiki's bar is, we really don't know if we're talking 39s (which aren't that narrow) or 36s.

Bikes today don't come with wide bars - buy a smaller size bike and it will have smaller width bars.

HTupolev

Going by the current market, they'd be very narrow for a 58cm bike... road bikes of that size today typically come with 42cm or 44cm bars. Since the OP mentioned 2", I was guessing that this is the kind of discrepancy we're dealing with.

Ronsonic 

Bars have changed in a lot of ways since the 80s. The big change was Ergo / Brifters / SIS people ride in one position more with hands on hoods. This means a shorter reach for the bars. With a shorter reach and your arms staying the same length you can spread them wider for comfort.

Among the racers the mode has been to have the tops lower than before with the drops at the same height relative to ground, or rider, so a shallower drop.

The pros are skinnier with less upper body strength than ever and need more leverage.

fietsbob

Mine did not change at all after I bought them, and put them on the bike..

'They' have always been made in a variety of widths, and bends,
don't like what you have?, change it !






...

mstateglfr 

1- wider bars compared to 80s bars = more comfort.

2- the same width bars were on 54s and 64s back in the 80s, at least based on the 80s road bikes ive refurbished and ride(the 63/64 ones). 38cm bars regardless of frsme size seemed to be a pretty common size. Im guessing it was a cost savings decision.

3- sure, narrower bars will feel more nimble. Others though will call that same feeling 'twitchy' and dislike it.


i cant imagine 38cm bars on my road bikes. Itd be lile a triangle between my shoulders, chest, and hands.

Trakhak

Not sure, but I think Grant Petersen might have been the one to invent the (spurious) idea that wider bars "open the chest for better breathing." I started racing in 1965, and I never came across that idea until I read it in a Rivendell Reader. It seemed an odd idea to me, since, for one example, the aero bars that pro riders use to ride time trials have the riders' elbows nearly touching. For another, racers climbing the Alps often ride with their hands positioned on the bars on either side of the stem.

For what it's worth, I've owned bikes with bars that were 42 cm, 40 cm, and 38 cm wide. I can feel the differences, but I don't have any real preference.

Leisesturm

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 ...

Kontact 

Grant Peterson was nobody when bars went to shoulder width.

However, comparing aero bars and vertical section of road bars doesn't really work. When you have your hands on the tops your elbows are pointed out, opening up the chest, and aero bars raise the elbows above the rib cage, but drops squeeze your triceps into the sides of the ribcage.

Trakhak

My point was that I never came across a claim concerning bar width and breathing before Grant P said it. He has a knack for churning out persuasive rhetoric in support of dubious claims (e.g., friction shifters are superior to indexed shifters, carbon frames are dangerous, wide bars open the chest).

The only cyclist I've ever seen to ride with triceps squeezing into the sides of the rib cage was Graham Obree, when he set his first hour record.

Can anyone here seriously claim to feel rib cage constriction from triceps positioning, let alone rib cage constriction that is higher or lower as a consequence of the bars being a few cm narrower or wider? I've tried to detect a difference in breathing with wider and narrower bars. I can't. (I also can't tell any difference in "riding comfort" between my carbon, aluminum, and steel bikes for a given wheelbase and set of tires, so I'm skeptical about those claims, too. I can easily tell a wheelbase difference of a few mm, though.)

By the way, a number of world-class track racers are using very narrow bars (down to 36 cm, I believe), and at least a couple of pros in the European peloton are experimenting with equally narrow bars.

Kontact 

You'll find discussion of bar width in cycling books written in the '80s, like Lemond's. So it was definitely claimed long before the '90s when Grant came into any sort of prominence as the Bridgestone guy.

Yes, I can feel my arms pressing on my ribs in certain drops configurations if the bars are too narrow. If you don't believe this is possible, that's okay - maybe you have narrow ribs. It may also not be important - the cyclists that feel their chests are able to fill more readily could simply be wrong in how much it affects them, but they still feel what they feel.

Kontact 

Americans are fatter, and nutrition has generally gotten worse since the '80s.