Ideal bar width for 140mm all-mountain bike?

hoodlum-z

getonyourbike - trust me, I'm a joiner by trade. Obviously a handsaw would be rough on carbon, but a wood blade in a chop saw, or mitre saw as some people call them, is spinning that fast it leaves a nice clean cut. With aluminium being relatively soft compared to steel you can still cut it no problem, especially if it's just a one off. It would definitely be a tidier job than doing it with a hacksaw.

By the way, your bike looks nice. I have left a comment on your page. The bars look cool in blue. I once got loads of bits annodised blue about 18 years ago on my old Cannondale hardtail, even did the cages on my XT pedals and cranks. Then there was the Ringle aluminium bottle holders and skewers, but they were bought in blue... they were the days, haha!

hoodlum-z

nick if I've sent you a message by mistake, sorry. I was meant to post it here, but it isn't showing.

An electric chop saw will cut carbon or aluminium cleanly without fuss. Even though they have a wood blade, they are quite versatile and can cut soft metals. You only need a steel blade for, er, steel!

hoodlum-z

Supersonic, yes, it makes sense that if people are short and have narrow shoulders then they will need a narrower bar and trees and the trail type all come into it.

I'm not dissing people's choice. It makes no difference to me if people prefer 600, 700 or 800. All I was interested in is finding out what is most popular.

Like I said earlier, the industry trend is definitely moving to wider bars across every category and that surely has a lot to do with suspension getting better, which makes bikes more capable and, hence, we ride much faster on them. Therefore, control is increasingly more important as every element of the bike needs to be at the same level.

For instance, we put the correct width tyres on to suit the application. It is only logical that our bar width applies in the same way. Wide bars have more leverage and more control, but they still have to be the correct width to suit the individual and their bike.

Anonymous

My take is wide bars are in many ways a fashion and a lot who buy them don't really investigate their need.

That's not to say they aren't an advantage, but many just blindly get them because everyone else does or they read some article or forum threads raving about it.

I'd argue that's what's happening with 29ers too...


... fire lit, ducks and runs away

Anonymous

No fire lit at all, Kenny. We've been trying to explain that to him, but he insists on having the most popular (ergo fashionable )

hoodlum-z

yeehaamcgee wrote:

jon87uk, check out the video Nicklouse linked to. It rather excellently explains why a wide bar can make a big difference in rear/forward weight shifts.

Here you back up the wide-bar theory then you say I'm just after them because they are a fashion accessory?

I was once a hard-tail weight-weenie, because that is what I grew up on twenty years ago. However, this year I decided to buy a full-susser and there is no comparison when going downwards. Sometimes you have to move with the times instead of hanging onto the past.

I've tried my narrow bars in a back-to-back test with my wide ones and the wider have more control so do their intended job better.

If you prefer narrow bars that is cool with me and your choice.

Have you actually tried wider bars yet or is your opinion based on assumptions? And I don't mean a quick two-minute ride on a friend's bike, because it actually takes a while to acclimatise to a wider set-up. So if you don't try them out properly, they will feel 'weird' at first.

Anonymous

hoodlum-z wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

jon87uk, check out the video Nicklouse linked to. It rather excellently explains why a wide bar can make a big difference in rear/forward weight shifts.

Here you back up the wide-bar theory then you say I'm just after them because they are a fashion accessory?

Not quite, no.
I'm still saying it's a stupid idea to ask what size bars other riders use, because it's like buying a pair of shoes based on the average foot size of other riders. What works for others may not work for you.
I can't get my head round why it's so hard for you to accept that.

supersonic

Sometimes you have to move with the times instead of hanging onto the past

I find that a bit insulting to be honest. I have a couple of very light HTs (also a couple of 30lbs plus play bike inc a full susser), and for general everyday riding I prefer the Zaskars. Again personal preference.

I've tried my narrow bars in a back-to-back test with my wide ones and the wider have more control so do their intended job better.

Just as before, this is for you. It maybe the same for many others, but for me (and I test bikes and parts for a living!) it is not so. I prefer all my bars to be around the 660 mark, with 640mm on the main bike.

It is certainly an area worth experimenting, as the theory about leverage is sound. But so is the one about fit and ride position. There is no 'perfect' bar width for certain types of bikes, depends on your preferences and body shape. There are rough trends, but nothing set in stone.

When people ask about wider bars or control this is the advice I give - it may give you more control, but be aware of fitting issues. I go back to what I said earlier - try one out, you can always cut it down.

hoodlum-z

Supersonic - sorry, that wasn't very clear. I wasn't saying hardtails are done and dusted, just that suspension has come along and it is clearly the biggest technological improvement to mountain bikes.

You could argue that if you ride a hardtail, why not just ride with a rigid fork, too?

Yehaamcgee - I can totally see what you are saying now you have explained yourself more clearly. And, yes, it is daft to specify components just because they are the most popular. But I wasn't necessarily asking the question to do that. I just wondered what the most popular choice was for 140mm full-sussers. If 680 is most popular, that doesn't mean to say I am going to scrap my wide bars. Of course not, but if 720 turns out to be most popular and that is what I had in mind, then that information might just reassure me that it was a good decision.

2011 model Specialized Enduros have 720 bars, Stumpjumpers have 680, but for 2012 more Stumpys will be using 720. That doesn't mean to say some people won't cut them down or whatever. It just shows that wide bars are gaining popularity - and usually popular means good in most cases.

For example, if so and so tyre is most popular, is that because it slips like an eel or gives you more control? Most likely it is popular because it gives good results.

Anonymous

The only "good decision" when it comes to bars, is whatever fits you.

nickel

Wouldn't it make sense just to buy some pretty wide bars then cut them down til you have the perfect width for you?

paul.skibum

Our rental fleet of Norcos includes the pretty dire Shore 3 which is a 6 inch travel freeride style bike - most of the bikes even the smalls have ridiculously wide bars from stock which we have cut down to suit rider size.

Even more weirdly the A line fleet has narrower bars which are perfectly suited to the riders we put on the bikes from small to large.

Personally I go for shoulder width plus a hand for my bar width - currently my trail bike could go a mite wider, my HT is perfect.

Anonymous

hoodlum-z wrote:

For example, if so and so tyre is most popular, is that because it slips like an eel or gives you more control? Most likely it is popular because it gives good results.

Maybe, maybe not. Tyres can also very subjective and I find some buy particular tyres because they are popular and they've read they're good and yet others who tell you to shove your opinion because they use XYZ brand that isn't popular but it works great for them.

What's popular may be because it's popular and people tend to like what they try and stick with it, often without trying anything else. They're probably popular because it's what comes with particular brands of bikes and people therefore swear by them.

cooldad

Tyres, like bikes in general, are often far more competent than the rider.

hoodlum-z

I went out on the bike tonight with the 737s and 70mm stem on. It felt perfect for me and the bars, strangely enough, didn't seem as wide as they did when I had the 50mm stem on. Perhaps this is because the shorter stem makes them look wider than they really are. Anyway, it is a combination I am happy with and will stick with it for now.

Thanks for the input, everyone. The video that nicklouse recommended is well worth watching.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Tech-Tuesd ... -2011.html

Something to bear in mind is that I didn't want a wider bar because my 680 was uncomfortable, because it wasn't. In fact, I've never had a problem with any bar that I've had on over the years whether it's 660 or even narrower (whatever the standard was twenty years ago?) I have jumped on the wide-bar band wagon purely for more control at high speed and more leverage in certain scenarios.

Cheers

nicklouse

so you want to be closer to the front of the bike?

with a 50mm stem then you need wider bars then.

hoodlum-z

nick,

I originally wanted a 70mm stem instead of the stock 100mm, but thought I'd buy a Sunline stem to match the Sunline bars. The only Sunline stems I could buy with a 1.5" steerer were the downhill ones, which was a bummer because they do some mint stems in 1"8th. The choice was 50 or 65, so like a sado weight-weenie I went for the 50mm to save a few grammes. This was a bad move and I regreted it ever since, as it wasn't very clever when climbing really steep hills. I have since gone with a 70mm Truvativ AKA stem and it feels 'just right'.

I've mixed and matched the bars and stems that I have got and the best combo for me is definitely the 737 and 70.

My dropper seatpost is approx 20mm setback (it's a Joplin 3) which makes up for the 30mm I have lost from the stock 100mm stem, as the original seatpost was an inline FSA version with no layback. Hence, my riding position should be same as standard but set further back on the bike slightly.

I didn't even think about 'getting low' on the bike until I watched the video - I am by no means a dedicated downhill dude.

The reason I wanted a shorter stem in the first place was to get further back when dropping off ledges and stuff because I am a right fanny in these situations, haha!

Anonymous

Two things worth considering...

A wider bar moves you forward.

A setback seatpost does not really cancel out a shorter stem, it actually exagerates the problem of your weight moving back.

Anonymous

So going by that video, it's amongst other things saying that wider is good to compensate for the slacker head angles people go for, as it can bring you forward again.

Thing is, my interest in a slacker angle is so my head isn't right over the front wheel and scaring the crap out of me when doing steep stuff. Anything that gives me more confidence that I'm not going to go OTB is good for me. If wide does the opposite, then that's bad for me. Interesting saying that a little stem difference can be a big equivalent of a wider bar.

anto164

deadkenny wrote:

So going by that video, it's amongst other things saying that wider is good to compensate for the slacker head angles people go for, as it can bring you forward again.

It's relating to DH and FR bikes..

A lot of DH bikes are being specced with 63degree head angles which is stupidly slack..

Look at this pic of Fabien Barels bike for an example of the insanity..

Anonymous

Yeah. I'm more looking for an all-mountain bike with a slacker angle than I've got, but nothing as crazy as that! Reason being is I feel steep descents are putting my head and body too far forward, over the front wheel, and just feel it's easier to go OTB if/when I hit something that I should really be able to ride over with a slacker bike and weight further back. Though I think much of it is just in the mind.

Anonymous

Kenny, a slacker angled bike can wash out on the front wheel when cornering hard, unless the rider makes an effort to weigh it down.
Even on my wolf ridge(s), I have to move my weight. But the upside is greater stability over very rough ground, and at speed.

Bike Bloke

I'm 6ft 6 with ridiculously long arms, does that mean I should be doing my XC on a 1000mm bar??? Or would that be too small?

NatoED

hoodlum-z wrote:

For anyone cutting down their bars, you could use a chop saw if you want a nice clean cut; a wood blade should cut aluminium and carbon no problem. ** I don't mean a handsaw - but an electric mitre saw or 'chopsaw' **

no no no no no . for carbon you need a very fine blade with shallow pitch to the teeth . anything to coarse and it will cause damage to the weave. That's why you get carbon cutting blades . the forces of the larger steeper pitch of the teeth will rip the carbon instead of cutting it ,

Anonymous

Bike Bloke wrote:

I'm 6ft 6 with ridiculously long arms, does that mean I should be doing my XC on a 1000mm bar??? Or would that be too small?

Depends on your shoulder width. For example, I'm only 5'9", and one of my riding mates is 6'2". However, I'm almost twice as wide as him

sheepsteeth

if we were to go with shoulder width i would need a 29 inch bar, which is fairly genrous to say the least. generous and mental in equal amounts.

my fave bar is a sunline v1 in 711 flavour. (sadly i cant fit one of those to my bikes)

supersonic

You could argue that if you ride a hardtail, why not just ride with a rigid fork, too?

I do on one of my bikes! More isn't always 'better'.

hoodlum-z

Yehaa - yes, mate, you are correct. By putting on a shorter stem and setback seatpost all I am doing is moving my weight back, but that is what I wanted. When I had the inline seatpost and short stem, it felt too cramped.

Anyhow, according to an article from MBR in a guide about geometry, they say your seat is the least important aspect of set-up because when you are stood up and ripping your seat doesn't really matter - plus you can move your seat forward or backwards. The inline post I had didn't have much room for adjustment, though.

I suppose most things are a trade off, you either set your bike up to go down or up, anything else is a compromise and you will never find the perferct answer / measurement.

The video does state that a wider bar will spread your arms and bring you forwards on the bike. However, RC stretches the tape measure and this does seem to show this, but the range of the tape he uses is far outside a normal bar width - yes he is only using this as an example. What I'm getting at is, the difference between a narrow and wide bar for most people will probably only be 50mm each side at the very most. That's going on a 660 bar to a 760 bar as an example. When you move your arm 50mm it doesn't really move your body much at all, the thing that you notice most is the increased leverage and control.

And yes, I'll admit, if you read instructions you probably do need to use a carbon-specific blade to cut carbon. But in the real world, on a building site for instance, you use what works and a DeWalt or Makita chop saw will slice through aluminium or carbon cleanly purely because of the speed of the blade, not because of the shape of the teeth.

If you put a slow moving blade down on alumiuium, or any other material, it would try and throw it out of your hand because the teeth would catch and jarr. Use a fast moving blade and put steady even pressure on the aluminium section and it will cut it. If anyone has tried this and it doesn't work then you aren't doing it properly. Obviously with a hacksaw you can leave your bars on the bike and the grip hides the cut anyway. For me, though, I'd rather use a powersaw so you can trim it slightly if needs be.

Experience and theory are two different things!

supersonic

Anyhow, according to an article from MBR in a guide about geometry, they say your seat is the least important aspect of set-up because when you are stood up and ripping your seat doesn't really matter

And according to the article I wrote for WMB on geometry and fit, the seat is very important. You spend a lot of time seated, so weight balance is extremely important.

sheepsteeth

supersonic wrote:

Anyhow, according to an article from MBR in a guide about geometry, they say your seat is the least important aspect of set-up because when you are stood up and ripping your seat doesn't really matter

And according to the article I wrote for WMB on geometry and fit, the seat is very important. You spend a lot of time seated, so weight balance is extremely important.

so, who is correct?