Re: [CR]bar width (was SR Royal)

(Example: Framebuilders:Richard Moon)

From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]bar width (was SR Royal)
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <3DC001C5.9B5272CA@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:13:32 -0800 (PST)

Ah he irony... Chuck will collect bikes with bars of any width and ride them, while I limit my collecting to bars, cranks, stems, etc. in "my size" and then I don't even really ride my older bikes. I like having my bikes set up "my way" so I only buy 40 to 42 cm bars, 172.5 or 175 cranks, and stems near the appropriate length (usually 120-130). For one thing, this keeps me from buying more stuff. Chuck, I can certainly understand why you keep a more flexible outlook. For one, you can keep all your vintage gems as originally equipped. It also allows you to enjoy a more varied riding experiece, each bike being allowed to be itself, so to speak. There are also period-dependent trends, like narrow bars on old bikes, that are just more "correct." Keep riding those old bikes! As for the narrow bars on older bikes, I always heard that "space in the peloton stuff," even in the 1980s. A real crit-meister uses skinny bars to fit through the gaps in corners and sprints! Whatever. Anyone have some old-logo 66-42's to sell cheap? I'll be non-period, gladly. Funny how rare those are. I guess they really did mostly use 40's back then. Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net> wrote:I have no problem doing long rides on 38cm or 42cm bars myself. But that's just me apparently. The suffering comment was made in jest.

Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal

"C. Andrews" wrote:
>
> Chuck proposed:
>
> "Tim, you can get use to 39cm. And besides, don't you
> remember the
> saying on the New York fashion runways, "You have to suffer
> for fashion,
> Darling!" Can apply to bicycles too...
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> SoPas, SoCal"
>
> Chuck, I could not disagree more with this statement. Well,
> ok the first line...the rest, about suffering, I agree with,
> as in, narrow bars make for suffering. Bars that are too
> narrow (and 39 c-c bars are too narrow for almost everybody,
> imho), offer no upside whatever, and make for some real
> disadvantages. Every time I put another 42cm c-c bar on a
> bike I breath a big sigh of relief. I have 44" shoulders,
> and 39cm bars are like a weird form of torture for me.
> Steering is lousy, leverage is lousy. Everything is lousy
> about them.
>
> Why narrow bars on so many of the classic road bikes, even
> the taller ones? I'm gonna take a wild guess at two
> reasons, someone please fill me in otherwise: 1) narrow
> bars make for more room in the peleton. An ancient
> justification, hard to accept given the advantages of
> leverage provided by wider bars, esp. climbing hills. 2)
> for a lot of years, most (not all, but most) European pros
> were tall, skinny guys, or just skinny, with modest shoulder
> width, and they could tolerate those ridiculous narrow bars.
>
> Ok, fire away! Nobody's gonna change my mind though. I'm
> with GP on this one: wide bars good, narrow bars bad.
>
> Charles "where's my 44" Andrews
> SoCal
>
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now