Re: [CR]Narrow vs. wide drops

(Example: Framebuilding:Restoration)

Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:11:58 -0600
From: "Mitch Harris" <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
To: brandon@ivycycles.com
Subject: Re: [CR]Narrow vs. wide drops
In-Reply-To: <8801bb250605251011y60a9570ar21370768e1f1c364@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s474670b.002@inetgw.co.ba.md.us> <8801bb250605242247j4d49a817vc9b8e1dcad6110ac@mail.gmail.com> <5864.67.22.39.37.1148572858.squirrel@webmail.ivycycles.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Sorry, forgot to sign off: Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah

On 5/25/06, Mitch Harris <mitch.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The CONI text that was quoted in the other thread is, in "fact," an
> assertion. I'm not dismissing the CONI assertion but merely identifying it
> as such. One reason I don't dismiss it is that it sounds pretty sensible
> that wider bars might allow more breathing and I assumed they were right
> about that until I tried it myself, and at least for me it is not the
> case--perhaps for the reasons you mention. You refer to research CONI, a nd
> presumably others, performed that proved that wider bars allow you to bre at
> better and I assume you are right that such reaserch was performed even
> though the quoted CONI text doesn't refer to it. I remember, too, reading
> about various research about this in the 80s. I'd be careful of using th e
> word "fact" to refer to the results of testing and research though.
> Research evolves. One can say, however, that it is a "fact" that CONI's
> research resulted in the conclusion that wider bars allowed better
> breathing.
>
>
> On 5/25/06, Brandon Ives <brandon@ivycycles.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually Mitch it's not just an assertion, it's a fact. I also wouldn' t
> > just dismiss the CONI tests shine it was an extensively researched
> > program
> > backed by the Italian government. Also back in the early-90s there was
> > a
> > bunch of research done about breathing and wider bars here in the U.S
> > . I
> > remember the conclusion was that wider bars let you breath better,
> > period.
> > Wider bars did also create a larger front for the rider creating more
> > wind drag. The main benefits come from better leverage and comfort for
> > most riders.
> >
> > The research was summarized in most of the cycling press at the time.
> > Maybe someone on the list has the research handy and can post it for us .
> > I'll ask the sports science guy at work and see if he remembers the
> > study. I'll post again if I find out anything more.
> >
> > I think in your specific case- and my case and pretty much every body o n
> >
> > this lists case- you're not riding to limits where a 5% loss in
> > breathing
> > capacity would be very noticeable. Personally I like to switch it up
> > and
> > ride all kinds of bikes with all kinds of bars. I can say that if I'm
> > zipping around town on my fixie I like narrow. If I'm on a long ride o r
> > tour with hills I like wide bars.
> > best,
> > Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
> > Coeur d'Alene, ID.
> >
> > > I tried narrower bars again a couple years ago when I had the perfect
> > > model
> > > bar for a (60cm) project bike, but the bar happened to be 38cm. I'm
> > about
> > > 6' with some breadth to the shoulders and have been told that the 42c m
> > > bars
> > > I'd been using for years were too narrow, that I need 44 or 46. So I
> > > assume
> > > d
> > > that the narrow bars would feel very wrong, but be ok on a bike I
> > seldom
> > > ride. First ride on that bike included long climbs and descents and I
> > was
> > > very comfortable in every way with the narrower bar. Out of the
> > saddle
> > > climbing was very nice, even preferable, with the narrow bar.
> > >
> > > One idea is that the narrower bar encourages you to bend your elbows a
> > > little more and that's good for smoothing out the ride, maybe.
> > >
> > > By contrast, my wife who is petite and rides a 50cm frame prefers a
> > wide
> > > bar, and recently found herself loving the 44cm bar I finally put on
> > her
> > > on-topic Batavus Pro. Her arms do appear triangulated from the front
> > while
> > > she rides.
> > >
> > > The CONI assertion that wide bars are necessary to allow breathing if
> > > you'r
> > > e
> > > stretched out on the bike is only that, an assertion. I don't find
> > that to
> > > be true in my case at all, and I prefer the position they describe as
> > > requiring wide bars.
> > >
> > > Mitch Harris
> > > Little Rock Canyon, Utah
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/24/06, Daniel Artley <dartley@co.ba.md.us > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> To quote a certain vintage racing manual, The Rome Cycling '72 Coni
> > >> Manual, "The cyclist must <<Love>> his bicycle". Whoops! That's on e
> > of
> > >> the few quotes I really do remember, but the manual also spoke of ba r
> >
> > >> width. Narrow bars only allowed the lungs to expand when a rider is
> > >> arched over the bike. Wider bars opened up the arms when stretched
> > out
> > >> allowing for free-er breathing. I seem to remember the width was
> > >> suppose
> > > d
> > >> to optimally be the width of the shoulders (wherever thats
> > measured).
> > >> Its been 30+ years since I've read that, so please don't flame me,
> > but
> > >> reading that is what drove me to spread out to a wider 40 cm, and
> > wider
> > >> 4
> > > 2
> > >> cm Giro di'Talia bar. When I went to 44 cm on a tandem, that seemed
> > ok
> > >> for it, but wrong for me on a single and have since backed down to m y
> > 42
> > >> cm optimum on road bikes if I can get them.
> > >>
> > >> Getting too many bikes (weren't we just talking about this?) means
> > using
> > >> my older parts bin, narrower Cinelli's rather than my more modern,
> > >> snobbily inappropriate 42 cm other name bars. Another problem is
> > always
> > >> having been a devotee of barend shifters (Campy of course are the
> > >> smoothest), many of my old classic bars are missing an inch to keep
> > my
> > >> knees from shifting while standing on the bike.
> > >>
> > >> Narrow bars sure were more inspireing to ride between narrow gaps
> > >> between
> > >> cars in those years I commuted in downtown Baltimore when I was youn g
> > >> and
> > >> fearless.
> > >>
> > >> Happy trails,
> > >>
> > >> Dan Artley, spread out in the country above Baltimore, MD
> > >>
> > >> Archive-URL:
> > http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrend
> > > ez
> > >> vous.10605.1113.eml
> > >> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 20:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > >> From: Don Wilson <dcwilson3(AT)yahoo.com>
> > >> Subject: [CR]Narrow vs. wide drops
> > >>
> > >> Ever since Aldo showed a pic of Bottechia and his
> > >> narrow drops tilted downward, I've been thinking how
> > >> comfortable and sleek he looked in the position he was
> > >> riding in. His hand positioning seemed rather like a
> > >> jockey on a race horse holding reins. And the
> > >> narrowness of the bars seemed a virtue leading to
> > >> comfort, dexterity and less wind resistance; at least
> > >> less of all these than I see today with everyone
> > >> riding with these extremely wide handle bars. I have
> > >> tended to prefer wide drops myself. But I went out and
> > >> adjusted a bike with narrow drops and a long quill to
> > >> this position of Bottechias, slipped the brake levers
> > >> up a bit, and liked it, despite being 6'2" tall and
> > >> average shoulder width for that height. It seems that
> > >> wide bars not only weigh more, but would create a
> > >> bigger frontal surface to push through the air.
> > >> Further, wider bars locate a persons hands and arms
> > >> out wider when staying near today's integrated
> > >> brake/shifter controls and enhance the sail effect of
> > >> the body. Why are wide bars so much more in favor now?
> > >> Or have they always been and I've just been around
> > >> alot of bikes with narrow drops for small riders?
> > >>
> > >> Don Wilson
> > >> Los Olivos, CA USA