joejack951

I've always used 42cm c-c handlebars since I started road cycling in 2003. Recently, I finished upgrading an old Trek with a new 105 group and have been mixing in rides on it with my other two drop bar bikes. For now, I still have the original handlebars on the Trek which happen to be 40cm bars. The difference is immediately noticeable yet I'm undecided as to whether the change is good or bad. It could be all in my head but I feel more aero which is definitely a good thing for the flatter roads on which I plan to use the Trek most. And again it could be all in my head, but I feel like I don't climb as well with the narrower bars whether due to less expanded lungs or less leverage standing on the pedals.

The reason I ask is that I'm about replace those original 40cm handlebars with some Ritchey Classic bars and stem (and a threadless stem adapter) and I can't decide which width to choose. Do I go with what I've always used or do I keep them narrow and hope I don't grow to hate the change? Again, I do plan to use the Trek mostly for flat roads where so far the narrow bars seem to work well.

Comments?

apaulson714

I recently swapped from 42 to 40 bars in a similar manner (was testing out drop distance on a couple of bars and the LBS only had a 40cm in one of the bars) and while i dont "feel" any different riding, my comfort level went up way more than i was expecting.

Just ride the 40cm bars for a bit and if you feel comfortable with those go for that. However, if you are comfortable riding 42cm and feel you dont climb as well with the 40cm, then stick with the 42cm. No real reason to change size if it doesnt work for you all around.

mcours2006

My vintage steel has a narrow handlebar, like 38 cm. That was the trend back then. But my more modern bikes have 42 cm. The difference is quite noticeable, but I'm more comfortable on the more narrow one.

Then when converting a hybrid to drop bar I got a 40 cm bar and I feel this is the best fit for me. It just feels right. I can't tell any difference in breathing, and I doubt there's any difference in aerodynamics either, puttering along at 30 km/h.

rpenmanparker 

Measure both bars center to center to be sure the size basis is the same. It isn't always. Some bar sizes are listed outside edge to outside edge. Same if you decide to buy new bars. Be sure you know the nominal size measurement basis and how it compares both to what you already have and what you want.

joejack951

One of the reasons I'm swapping them out is that they won't stay positioned properly, most likely due to the center sleeve coming loose (or the single bolt quill stem clamp not holding tightly enough). So as much as I'd like to keep riding the 40cm bars to see if I continue to like them, I'm probably not going to put many more miles on that bike until I have a new handlebar and stem setup for it.

You mention that you are way more comfortable on the 40cm bars. How tall are you and how broad shouldered are you?

joejack951

All of my 42cm are Ritchey, measured c-c, and I plan to buy Ritchey 40 or 42cm bars for the Trek, too. The bars on the Trek measure about 39cm c-c per my tape measure, which I'm just calling 40cm. Maybe they are actually '38cm' bars, but they don't feel as narrow as the 38cm c-c bars I put on my wife's bike so I'm happy rounding up.

elboGreaze

I would suggest going with the 42's because thats what you are used to and feel comfortable with . Just my .02

2lo8

Don't forget some bars flare, meaning c-c at the ends is not the same as c-c at the hoods.

I would just measure my shoulders and go from there. It's the joint to joint, not outside to outside.

joejack951

Yup, I noticed this. My current 42cm Ritchey's and the bars on the Trek both are about 20mm narrower at the hoods. Seems the bars are sized by the width across the drops.

That's how I landed on 42cm. Granted it was a number of years ago that I measured but I doubt I've grown or shrunk at my age since then. But there is definitely something I like about the 40cm bars. I just can't tell if I'll continue to like that aspect of feeling smaller on the bike. I do know that the Trek will never be my hill climbing bike which is why I am even considering accepting the tradeoff of the narrow bars for that.

2lo8

Ride both bikes again, then look down at your hands and see what the angle is. Sometimes people compensate for width differences with their wrist/hand angle, which causes a noticeable difference.

krusty

I wish I could find the link, but I was reading a little while ago about bar width, and one of the things mentioned was that when you measure adult skeletons, the distance between shoulder joints was within a very small range of being the same from person to person, and that the old adage of using wider bars to open up the chest for better breathing had been disproven. I'll see if I can find it. It was quite interesting. I have gotten used to 38cm bars for track use and have carried that over to my road bikes too. I find them quite natural in feel.

2lo8

When a bar manufacturer only makes 40, 42 and 44 that's not exactly a wide range either.

rpenmanparker 

Compare what you said about adult skeletons being similar sizes to your personal knowledge and experience. Does it make sense? Do all suit jackets come within a few cm range? Think about it.

krusty

It didn't say that they would all wear the same size suits, it said that the distance between the shoulder joints varied only a small amount, regardless of how much or how little muscle and fat they would have carried, or their height.

Wildwood 

I'm in the narrow camp. Learned on 38s , 40 is about as wide as comfort allows. 6'1".

joejack951

So what is the rationale for 38cm bars on track frames? I'd think you'd want more leverage for sprinting but do the aero benefits of the narrower bars make up for it? Or is there something else I'm missing?

joejack951

What type of terrain do you ride? I'm beginning to wonder if there is a correlation between that and a 'comfortable' bar width.

krusty

More room to move between riders in mass start events, and narrower is more aero as well, as practiced by Tri folks with "closing the cup" posture and alignment on the aero bars.

rpenmanparker 

Okay. I understand that difference. But folks vary widely with regard to the natural width between their hands when at rest at their sides for whatever physiological reason. Think Olympic swimmers compared to jockeys. Skeletal similarities or not, isn't that what we are trying to correlate with bar width? Notice I didn't say that we are trying to match hand width with bar width, just correlate.

krusty

I think the point was that trying to measure your shoulder width, then attempting to choose a bar width based on that measurement is a bit futile, as is the notion that because you have a bit more chest size, you somehow need a wider bar to aid your breathing. It does indeed come down to comfort for the individual. Try different widths. Each has an effect on the overall bike fit and comfort. Narrower, however, is more aero, but unless that is important to you as a racer (rather than a recreational rider, or just a serious cyclist), it should not be your sole motivation for choosing a particular bar, nor should what is actually a difficult measurement to take with any degree of precision, especially when narrow to really wide bars differ by only a few centimetres.

joejack951

I appreciate all the comments. I'm going with the narrower bars, if for no other reason than to make this particular bike feel that much different from my others. Based on this discussion, it seems, like so many things with cycling, that bar width choice comes down to two things: tradition and personal preference, and both can change from time to time.

I'll try to report back once I've spent some additional time with the new narrow bars that hopefully won't have me cursing at the slipping sleeve/clamp half the time.

Wildwood 

Mostly rolling and flat. I confess to not riding mountain roads much. Most likely my preference for narrow bars comes from starting out on them.