3dbiker

For some time now I have had problems with my upper back (latissimus dorsi, infraspinatus) and I would like to know if it could be due to a handlebar that is too wide.
Currently on my bike I mount a 42cm wide handlebar c/c (upper part) 44cm (external) while my shoulders are 39cm wide, so I should mount a 40cm wide handlebar c/c in the upper part.
The problems arise if I raise the saddle a little while keeping the setback unchanged (ideal saddle height) or if I move the saddle back (lowering the saddle). I can't pedal any lower than I pedal now because otherwise I have hip problems. Furthermore, I have no problems reaching the lower part of the handlebars, for this reason I think the problem depends on the handlebar being too wide and not on an excessive handlebar saddle height difference which is about 6.7cm. what do you think? Can a handlebar that is too wide cause this to you problems?

Isn't using a handlebar wider than 2cm the same as using a longer stem?

My measurements:
I'm 176cm tall with an inseam of 82.3cm, foot size 45 eu, and I ride with a saddle height between 72.7cm and 73cm

I have an ostro vam factor bike size 54 (55 cm horizontal with 110 attachment)

tanks

Iride01 

They did for me. I had 42 cm bars on my previous bike I road for about 3 years. I didn't quite like them but I put up with them. I'd get sore between my shoulders IIRC. Before that most all my other bikes had 38 cm bars. When I got my new bike, it also came with 42 cm bars. But after suspecting that the soreness I felt in my shoulders was from being braced too much against the side to side forces my body experiences during the ride, I swapped the bars for 38 cm bars and my shoulders noticed the difference.

Going to narrower bars actually had the more desirable effect that let me respond quicker to road hazard's such a pot holes or trash that I saw at the last moment and quickly change my line to avoid them. Some might think that twitchy, but to me it's just more maneuverable. You'll get use to it after three or four good rides.

I only ride road bikes though. So bar width for other types of riding might not compare, at least for the actual width. Other genres of riding will have their own factors that might lean towards using wider bars.

3dbiker

Ok thanks, do the areas of your back where you had pain match the ones I marked in green in the image you can find at the link below? for me it is really unbearable

Iride01 

The x marks I'd put more in toward the spine, but still on the shoulder blades and the small circle I'd elongate it a few inches up the spine.

But this was a couple years ago and it never was severe. Just an annoyance.

Kontact 

You shouldn't use drop bars wider than your shoulders because your shoulder joints aren't built to bear weight at that angle. You have to use more muscle to absorb shock and hold your position, so it is no wonder your upper back hurts.

There is no good reason to use wide bars. It is less aerodynamic, less ergonomic and heavier. It does not help control the bike better.

Get the correct size bars.

oldbobcat

It might depend on how much weight you're carrying with your shoulders. If you're not able to support the torso with your back muscles, the burden falls on the hands, wrists, arms, and shoulders. If you widen the stance, you're losing the skeletal support of having the hands in line, closing the angle of the shoulder teres majors, and possibly lowering the torso, shifting more mass toward the shoulders.

If you could carry that weight with your core like a mountain biker, who would use a much wider bar, width wouldn't be as much of an issue.

oldbobcat

In the 1980s wider bars were the fashion because they supposedly "opened the chest for easier breathing." You saw medium sized-guys on 42s and the big guys were unsing 44s and even 46s. I fell for it, too, but going from 42 to 44 wasn't much of a stretch. Mostly, I just bumped knuckles and elbows more when riding in a double paceline. Nowadays I don't think they even make 46s except for gravel bikes.

Kontact 

I don't recall that happening, but that period was also when people were riding frames two sizes two large.

oldbobcat

Seat posts were shorter, handlebar drops were deeper, brake hoods were mounted lower on the bars, nobody used extreme forward saddle positions, and top tubes were shorter and horizontaler. The '80s saw widespread deviation from the old "stem level with the handlebars" standard that was initially broken by taller riders. There were no "compact" flat-on-top handlebar bends. There were no noseless saddles. There were more hand positions on traditional handlebars because of their compound curves. To get my optimum 57 cm top tube I used to ride 59s to 61s. These days its 56s to 58s.

There was a time when a newbie would walk into a shop and the salesman would put them on the largest frame they could throw a leg over. Maybe recreational riders were riding bikes that were too big.

Wildwood 

My 1984 60cm Centurion touring bike came with 38cm ctc bars. I never liked anything wider.

But don't listen to me - I like to ride bikes 2 sizes too large, by modern standards, with narrow bars.
If it warms up in the PNW, this bike will come off the trainer. New handlebar experiment measures 34cm ctc at the base of the hoods, 40cm in the drops. . It has been comfortable for up to 1 hour indoor rides.

oldbobcat

That was called the randonneur bend. It swept back and up to make for an easier reach. The tradition road bend was calle Maes, after some Belgian guy. There were many variants in depth, reach, and how they curved from the clamp. Less than pro-level bikes didn't get proportional handlebarl widths until, maybe, the late '90s. When I started racing, we were all on Peugeot PX-10s, Gitane Tours de France, and Raleigh Internationals. They all came with inexpensive sleeveless alloy bars like this, with a Maes bend, 38 or 39 cm wide. Our club president and I were the first guys to use 40 cm bars. We were always bumping each other in the double-paceline club ride. 40 mm was the most common size for the Cinelli and 3T bars that the better bikes were equipped with. Some smaller "woman-size" bikes came with 38s, 42s were hard to come by, and 44s were practically unheard of until the the '80s were well under way. I remember walking into Excel Sports looking for a 42 cm Cinelli 66, when I saw the 44. The salesman convinced me to buy the 44. I didn't think about handlebar width again for 20 years.

A lot of pro riders are using narrower bars now, purportedly for better aerodynamics and easier sneaking between sprint trains. They also angle the levers inward to further reduce the volume of air scooped up by the torso and arms. My main bike came with a 44. I now use a 42. Eddy-size.

BFC

Bar width is usually the least of your worries when it comes to pain in other parts of the body. Many pros are going narrower than 38cm

Kontact 

But not wider. Narrower is never going to screw up your body, while too wide can.

BFC

Had to wait my 24 hours to reply... I'm just replying to the OP's question on bar width, where his real issue is stem length, but let's talk bar width as that was his concern. True, generally, 'roadies' are used to a certain width bar since that is what their body has adapted to so going wider on a narrower bar width will put more stress usually on the wrists since now you are a little lower in the front so you need to hold up more body weight. Going narrower, the opposite happens, with less weight. Now, to address your point about wider bar width, some gravel bikes compared to road bikes come with 1 size wider bars due to needing a little more leverage to navigate the dirt so a road bike might come with 42 bars and equivalent size gravel will have 44's. Many cross-country and 'endurance-style' MTBs come with 760 mm-780 mm wide bars while most downhill MTBs come standard with 820s, which by the way are 2X the width of what the OP is asking about. The bottom line, the OP needs to see a bike fitter that has some experience in kinesiology so the OP can be placed in the correct position. Please do not adjust the saddle height/fore/aft to accommodate cockpit comfort, saddle positioning is all about being in safe angle ranges for the knees and hip ROMs and ultimately achieving the highest power output safely. I hope this helps.

Kontact 

The bars you're talking about aren't straight up and down. Clearly MTB bars arent a problem, because your shoulder angle is changed. Same with flared bars.

BFC

Thank you for agreeing wider bars are not the problem. The OPs issue is with stem length.

Kontact 

I don't know if you're being funny or you didn't understand. Wide bars are a problem if the elbow bend remains straight up and down.

Put your elbows at your sides and your forearms level - try to spread your hands: You'll only get about 20 degrees a side. Try it again with your elbows a few inches from your torso, and again with your upper arms horizontal. The closer you are to horizontal the wider you can spread your hands. That's a limitation of the shoulder joint. If you are trying to ride a bike with the shoulder joint near its limit, you will hurt the muscles and tendons that hold the shoulder joint together.

WT21

I can't chime in on handlebar width. I don't know much about that (though I, too, suspect my bars are a bit wide for me). But just wondering - do you do pull ups or rowing motions at all? Apart from biking, I had what I thought was a crippling issue with pain in those areas. At the time, I was doing regular push ups and curls, and then did computer work all day. Turns out, those back muscles get overstretched and go into spasm. Regular indoor rowing and pull ups strengthen those muscles and have eliminated that pain for me. I'm no doctor. Just an internet rando - so don't take what i'm saying as personal medical advice, but maybe something worth researching. All of this could be irrelevant to your case, as well. Good luck.