On 5/27/06, Jan Heine <heine93@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I ride both wide and narrow bars, and have no strong preference.
This is my experience too with bars from 42cm (my widest comfortable bar) t o 37cm and I wear a size 44 suit. It did surprise me that narrower bars were comfortable and easy to ride with (and breath with) since I had read that wider shoulders required wider bars.
> But
> I do prefer wide bars on some bikes, and narrow ones on others. Most
> of this was a sidebar in the front-end geometry article in Vintage
> Bicycle Quarterly Vol. 3, No. 3. Here it is with some details added:
>
> 1. Breathing: It is hard to believe that decreasing the handlebar
> width even by as much as 5 cm (say from 44 to 39 cm) makes a big
> difference on chest capacity, even if we assume it would restrict
> breathing (the evidence below seems to indicate the opposite). After
> all, if your reach is about 62-75 cm, even 5 cm change amount to less
> than a change in slope of less than 8 percent or 4.6 degrees. So each
> arm would move inward by less than 2.3 degrees with the narrower
> bars. Because your arms articulate at the elbows, the angle change at
> the shoulders can be even less. (The matter is different with modern
> aero bars, which fix the position of the elbows, and where positions
> as narrow as 15 cm are possible, with the elbows touching each other.)
>
> 2. Steering: Depending on the front-end geometry, some bikes are
> easier to ride with more leverage (wider bars), while others require
> only the slightest touch to keep them on course, and thus are fine
> with narrow bars. Generally speaking, older bikes (1940s) have less
> trail and require less steering input, thus are fine with narrow bars.
3. Bar position: On low bars, which usually are combined with a less
> stretched-out position (your arms angle downward rather than
> forward), you put more weight on the bars. This exacerbates lean
> steer/wheel flop and all the related issues of shifts in rider
> position influencing the steering. So wider bars, with a long
> lever-arm, mean these influences are reduced - a 1 cm shift of your
> hands results in less steering input.
>
> 4. Low handlebars: Regarding the low bars - Fred made a good point.
> With races being shorter and speeds much faster than in the past,
> less weight rests on the hands, and multiple hand positions become
> less important. Coppi and Bartali's racing bikes were set up more
> like modern randonneur bikes, because they spent significant time on
> their bikes. If modern racers had similar fitness (some would say,
> lack of modern doping) as the old campionissimi and rode on the same
> courses, I believe their bike setup would be similar to Coppi's
> Bianchi or Bartali's Legnano.
>
> Conclusion: For me, narrow bars work well on bikes designed for them.
> A 1940s racing bike, with a high bar position and relatively
> stretched-out position, puts less weight on the hands. These bikes
> usually have a low-trail geometry that does not require wrestling
> with the bars. Not much leverage needed here. These bikes are fine
> with narrow bars, but they aren't much worse with wider bars.
For me narrower bars are just as easy to ride with on longer trail bikes as on my shorter trail bikes. I don't find myself wrestling with the steering on my longer trail bikes. Even with the bars about 3" below the saddle. My arms angle pretty much out forward rather than downward. Arms angled forwar d is important to me for riding comfort but I don't have difficulty achieving this angle with the bar 3" below saddle, as long as I have the proper top tube length and stem. I've tried a higher bar but found it uncomfortable fo r anything but very short distance riding. That's been my experience, but surely there are other CR members who set their bars below the saddle for reasons of comfort.
> Modern bikes with more trail and a lower bar position react more to
> shifts in weight. More leverage helps both by minimizing the impact
> of rider weight shifts on the steering and by offering more leverage
> to counter wheel flop and bump steer.
Maybe this is why I seem to be able to ride my longer trail bikes (like mos t any English or Italian racing oriented lightweight from the 70s on) without having to wrestle them. Because the longer trail steering geometry is more responsive to weight shift, perhaps I tend to steer more by weight shift than overt arm movements? That's just my experience, but surely others on C R find that their 70s long trail lightweights are quite ridable and do not require wrestling to get down the road?
Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah
> Some bikes during the transition to modern geometries, which may
> still have "old-style" narrow bars, thus may be improved with wider
> bars.
>
> Overall, I have found that after a few miles, I get used to any bar
> width, and it does not affect my performance.
>
> When I raced, I used a bike with a modern racing position. Now that I
> do long-distance rides over a variety of surfaces, my bike setup
> looks more like a 1940s racing bike...
>
> Jan Heine
> Editor/Publisher
> Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
> c/o Il Vecchio Bicycles
> 140 Lakeside Ave, Ste. C
> Seattle WA 98122
> http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com
>
>
> At 8:35 PM -0500 5/26/06, John Thompson wrote:
> >Donald Gillies wrote:
> >> 5% more breathing capacity with wide bars ?? I can hardly believe it
.
> >> The chest is a fixed cavity and you breathe by pulling the diaphragm
> >> down, drawing air into the lungs. The arms are unable to influence
> >> the size of that cavity. The diaphragm is several inches below where
> > > the arms are in all riding positions except facing backwards sitting
> >> on the handlebars steering with your hands behind your back.
> >>
> >> I'd like to see a reference to the "so-called" research that purports
> >> that wider bars increase breathing capacity ! ! !
> >
> >The best I can find is that the effect of riding position, and
> >presumably arm position, on breathing capacity is "inconclusive:"
> >
> >
> >Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Volume 29(6) June 1997 pp
> 818-823
> >
> >Influence of different racing positions on metabolic cost in elite
> cyclists
> >
> >GNEHM, PETER; REICHENBACH, STEPHAN; ALTPETER, EKKEHARDT; WIDMER, HANS;
> >HOPPELER, HANS
> >
> >Department of Anatomy, University of Bern, CH-3000 Bern 9; and Institute
> >of Sports Sciences, CH-2532 Magglingen, SWITZERLAND
> >Submitted for publication January 1995.
> >Accepted for publication January 1997.
> >
> >
> http://scholar.google.com/
> >
> >
> >--
> >John (john@os2.dhs.org)
> >Appleton WI USA
>
>
> --