David,
Waaay back in the day, in 1930s, 40s and 50s, the normal bar width was 36cm or 38cm with occasional 40cm wide bars.
One of the tales that I heard or read back in the early 70s was that narrow bars were better because they allowed riders to be closer together in the pack (maybe it was in the Italian CONI cycling bible???)
There was a lot of bull pucky about cycling going around in those days! ;-)
In 1975 I got a nice set of internally reinforced Milremo alloy bars. I used them on at least 3 different bikes the last being relegated to stationary use.
For many years I did mostly off road and rough stuff riding on lugged frame bikes with 700c - NOT 29 INCHER!!! - tires, either cyclocross sewups or larger diameter clinchers.
I have wide shoulders and over the yeas I moved to wider upright bars for off road riding. The idea was that when your hand were on the grips they should be positioned straight out from your shoulders.
The theory was that having you arms more spread apart allowed you to breathe easier, works for me!
When I got back to road bikes about 4 years ago, I realized why the one bike had been relegated to stationary use, the bars were only 38cm wide!
When I changed the bars on it to 42cm wide the bike became a pleasure to ride.
My other bikes had 40cm and 42cm bars which were a little better.
Using the straight out from the shoulders measurement, a 46cm bar should be the perfect width for me so I bought a 46cm Nitto bar to try.
Aside from the bike resembling a Cadillac "Pimp-mobile" with a set of Texas Longhorn steer horns on the hood, they were a tad too wide for me.
I've since settled on 42cm, 43cm and 44cm wide bars for all of my rider road bikes (wall hangers excluded).
I have a theory about European cyclist's physiques during the first half of the last century. Many cyclists of that era survived the nutritional deprivation of WWI and WWII. they tended to have narrow hips and chests.
Fausto Coppi is an example of the type of physique I'm talking about. For these kinds of riders narrow bars would be the proper size for them.
In the mid 1960s more robust cyclists populated the pro pelotons and by the 1970s you have riders like (pick your favorite pro).
Bar widths and Q-Factor were tied into those nutritional issues. That's my theory!
Chas. Colerich Oakland, CA USA
David Kulcinski wrote:
> I have searched the archives and the internet and have not been able to find the information that I'm looking for. It was mentioned to me that my handlebars were very narrow. Back in "the day" I never heard anything about measuring (fitting) handlebars.
>
> Now, with that in mind, there was a post this morning about some Cinelli 67-39 handlebars. The 39 is the width c-c according to the accompanying text. What does the 67 stand for? Are there any other numbers/measurements that I should look for/ ask about if I am inquiring about some better fitting handlebars?
>
> Thank you,
>
> David Kulcinski
> Orange, CA USA