Wider vs. Narrower Handlebar



meehs

New Member
Nov 7, 2003
1,868
0
0
58
My new road bike has a 46cm Salsa Pro Road handlebar on it (and it measures 46cm center to center os it's WIDE). The bike that it replaces had a 44cm handlebar on it (which I believe was measured outside to outside). The 46cm bar on the new bike feels REALLY wide to me and I'm thinking of replacing it with a narrower bar.

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of a wider or narrower bar? What size bars do you guys (and girls) run?
 
Originally posted by meehs
My new road bike has a 46cm Salsa Pro Road handlebar on it (and it measures 46cm center to center os it's WIDE). The bike that it replaces had a 44cm handlebar on it (which I believe was measured outside to outside). The 46cm bar on the new bike feels REALLY wide to me and I'm thinking of replacing it with a narrower bar.

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of a wider or narrower bar? What size bars do you guys (and girls) run?
What size depends on body size and also some personal preference. There are bar width guidelines on some of the fit calculator sites. Either too wide or too narrow can cause discomfort. Try it on a long ride to see how it feels before dumping it. Too wide ones give me pain between the shoulder blades.
 
Originally posted by meehs
My new road bike has a 46cm Salsa Pro Road handlebar on it (and it measures 46cm center to center os it's WIDE). The bike that it replaces had a 44cm handlebar on it (which I believe was measured outside to outside). The 46cm bar on the new bike feels REALLY wide to me and I'm thinking of replacing it with a narrower bar.

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of a wider or narrower bar? What size bars do you guys (and girls) run?

The theory is a wider bar allows you to open up a little more and ease/assist your breathing... (I personally usa a 46cm bar, and would not consider going smaller).
 
Originally posted by meehs
My new road bike has a 46cm Salsa Pro Road handlebar on it (and it measures 46cm center to center os it's WIDE). The bike that it replaces had a 44cm handlebar on it (which I believe was measured outside to outside). The 46cm bar on the new bike feels REALLY wide to me and I'm thinking of replacing it with a narrower bar.

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of a wider or narrower bar? What size bars do you guys (and girls) run?

I have noticed a recent tendency for some manufacturers to have been specifying overly wide bars and overly long cranks on even mid-sized frames as the default.

The wider the handlebar is, the easier breathing should be and optimizes lung-capacity. Steering is more relaxed with a wider bar, but less responsive as more motion is required to effect the same angular change of the steerer tube. Aerodynamics is usually enhanced slightly by narrower bars, but I doubt if the difference between 40-46cm is very substantial for most riders in comparison to elongated TT bars.

Most "guides" recommend that you take the meaurement from the "distance between the bony protusions at the top of the shoulders", which is a sort of ambiguous measurement as most people I know don't exactly have the same slope and shape!!

It used to be that LBS's always wanted to outfit me with bars that were too narrow, now I find that it is almost always the opposite.
A lot of proper fit also has to do with what type of longitudal reach is most comfortable for you. As the handlebars are closer to you it is more comfortable to have the handlebars further outboard. I personally prefer a longer top-tube and a bit narrower handlebar. I personally (5'9" with a long torso for what that is worth) use a 42 on one bike and only a 41cm (center-center) almost antique Modolo X-Eras on another. I find that I am most comfortable if, when I am seated for the long-haul, if my forearms are more or less perpendicular with the fram when I am in the front of the drops (e.g. braking). If my wrists are outboard of my elbows at this point I rarely get comfortable. If I spent most time forward out of the saddle pounding than I could go wider.

I suspect that a lot of this trend has come from the tendency of the mass market towards smaller frames and the number of people who are used to riding flat bars on MT and hybrids.

One also need to take into consideration the vertical alignment of the drops in comparison to the flats of the bar, if you ride in a variety of positions. Like most things in cycling there is a fair amount of personal preference involved.
 
Originally posted by meehs
My new road bike has a 46cm Salsa Pro Road handlebar on it (and it measures 46cm center to center os it's WIDE). The bike that it replaces had a 44cm handlebar on it (which I believe was measured outside to outside). The 46cm bar on the new bike feels REALLY wide to me and I'm thinking of replacing it with a narrower bar.

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of a wider or narrower bar? What size bars do you guys (and girls) run?
I use a 42cm rood bar. (That's the measurement, shoulder to shoulder) Generally, the wider the bar the better your lungs can "Breathe", and the better the feel. The narrower the bar provides for a narrower cockpit, and a more aerodynamic ride.
As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is whatever feels good.
 
I also find a wider bar provides more leverage and stability when putting the power down out of the saddle.
 
I definitely prefer narrower (I'm 5-10, 160lbs). 42cm centers, HOWEVER, it's more complicated than that. If the bars' drops flare out, then a 42 is actually a lot narrower up top. So... I just swapped to a set of 44cm Profile Lava bars. I like them because they curve more up top than the Ritchey Pro bars that I kept bumping my forearms on when sprinting from the drops. So, they are narrow up top like a 42, but are a 44 in the drops.
 
Originally posted by serenaslu
Steering is more relaxed with a wider bar, but less responsive as more motion is required to effect the same angular change of the steerer tube.

In terms of steering, 'less responsive' also means 'less twitchy handling.' Depends whether you prefer a more stable or more sensitive setup.
 
I'd have to agree; beyond what's comfortable -- narrower bars lessen your ability to breathe big, and as boudreaux indicated, bars that are too wide can cause weird ergonomic issues as well -- stability will vary greatly depending on your relative bar width.

Using narrower bars, I find that I'm a lot less powerful out of saddle, when being able to leverage your balance left and right in each hand becomes more critical. Less width across the hands leads to less lateral control, which makes me less potent when I'm pushing hard.

44cms fit me just fine, most of the time.
 
Originally posted by pineapple
In terms of steering, 'less responsive' also means 'less twitchy handling.' Depends whether you prefer a more stable or more sensitive setup.

Lets not forget that frame geometry, rake and stem length also affect stearing as much or more than handlebar width. It's only fair to compare widths for handling purposes if you are swapping bars really. My mountain bike for example is super sensitive compared to my beater road bike with 44cm bars.
 
I run 40cm bars (centre-centre) on my roadie. Very narrow compared to a lot of guys i know. i dont like the feel of having my arms wide apart when im trying to hammer. I think it is a mental thing more than anything but i feel like i am catching too much air creating my own parachute. I also like the narrow bars in a sprint as it forces my arms to come around and in the sides (of the drops) a little more compared to wider bars, so i dont knock my forearms on the bends when sprinting on the drops. I dont have a problem sprinting in regards to leverage or whatever either.........maybe this is due to my 170mm (shortish) cranks not creating enough twisting force to need the extra length in the bars??? By the way i run 38cm bars on my track bike and 165mm cranks. Is this normal? Another reason i love narrow bars is it gives me an extra couple of cm to get through gaps in bunch sprints! I am pretty sure that this is just another mental thing, but if it works for me i suppose it doesnt matter (come to think of it i might be a mental case). So when i sit down and think about it i think that it all comes down to personal preference.

Does anybody else have trouble steering properly (out of the seat) with an extra long stem >140mm? maybe wider bars help your steering when the stem length is getting longer as they give extra stability. Im not really sure, just throwing up ideas why diff people might prefer certain things. Also would a wider Q-factor and/or longer cranks be enough difference to effect the length of bars needed for out-of-the-seat efforts? Spinning/grinding may also be a factor in the decision?

I think that this is such a subjective issue with so many variables (ie, fork rake, stem length, head angle, top tube length, seat/handlebar drop etc.) effecting the length of different measurements involving the bars/steering and your effective reach to them, that only you can really say which width of bars would be best for you. Good luck!!!
 
I'm not an expert but I agree with what Cipher said.

Wider bars may produce more drag but it does open up the chest area for better breathing.

Narrow bars will aid you in creating that crouched neat tuck for you to go fast.

But what like most posts here. I'd go with comfort. Unless of course if you join a lot of competitions where you really have to create a strategy as to which size bar will aid you in winning.

Just my 2 cents.
 
I recently changed bikes. Also changed to 42cm c-c bars. Previously i had 45cm c-c bars. I had thought that the wider bars were comfortable but after riding the narrower ones I feel a lot better. I have felt no difference in breathing ability and ahve neater aerodynamics thanks to the narrower bars.
I don't exactly have narrow shoulders or chest either. I am 175cm tall 72kg and have a "swimmers build" and slight barrel chest. My ability lies in sprinting.

If I had used one method which suggested that I find the bar width that would fit around my shoulders I would have ended up with 46cm!

When holding the bars your arms should appear to be straight out in front of you (get someone else to check).

You must trade off exactly what you want. If the desired net result is speed then shying on the narrower end of the scale will benefit you more than widening the bars. (remember that speed records set at altitude are faster, due mainly to the improved air resistance, even though you can't breathe as well).

Certainly I wouldn't recommend goiing as narrow as possible (there's no point in going narrower than the straight arms method unless you race track), but I think there's a bit of a misconception that wider bars will automatically make you breathe better (let alone faster).
 
I use a 39cm c-c (SR, circa ’87), which are close to my shoulders (38), and will probably go with a 40 on a new bike since not much else is offered that’s narrower. Breathing isn’t a problem since I naturally stick my elbows out slightly to open up, and always bring them back in when in a tuck. The current marketing trend is definitely w-i-d-e. I’ve test-ridden a few bikes and can tell you the bars will be the first to get swapped out, they’re just too wide. In the drops, fingertip control at the shifters and levers seems less nimble with too wide a bar...... fingers have to reach more. On the hoods it wouldn’t matter.

For added leverage I could go to 42, but no wider. Most of my riding time is spent in the hilly San Gabriels where the energy costs are huge when climbing out of the saddle. Too much lateral sway would use up precious energy and ultimately scrub speed on the hill. However, if I were competitive
I would think the additional leverage offered by a wider bar would help for all-out sprinting as power usually wins.

Tafi?
 
After riding the new bike for a while I tried going back to the old for a day. Whilst the rest of the bike is fine, I found the wide bars very cumbersome and slow to my input. And I felt like a windsock.

Narrow bars require more input but the net result is more speed for me.
 
Okay, conventional and accepted wisdom states (and as oft-mentioned here) that wider bars enable better breathing. But wait a minute. The now universally accepted time trial bars and aero position hardly seem to keep time trialers from gulping and burning plenty of oxygen during the event in which the ability to breathe well [and thus providing maximum oxygen to the body] is most essential.

Stated more simply, if time trialers breathe just fine on those extremely narrow aero bars, why would a roadie be concerned with conventional road bars being 40 cm vs 46 cm--except purely as preference?
 
Originally posted by Maj.Taylor
Stated more simply, if time trialers breathe just fine on those extremely narrow aero bars, why would a roadie be concerned with conventional road bars being 40 cm vs 46 cm--except purely as preference?
Good point. Without having any real scientific insight on the matter, I'd suppose the answer is that whatever negative effect narrowing your arm position has on breathing is, for most cyclists, subtle -- or at least subtle enough that a pro athlete can regard the improved aerodynamics as an acceptable tradeoff.

As you wondered aloud, the factors at play here -- aerodynamics, ease of breathing, and stability -- are all balanced against each other in terms of preference. The elite pros which come up with these strategies have got preference down to a calculated science, is all, and they all prefer to be as slippery as possible when TT'ing.

I just know I like 'em around 44cm.
 
ya, around 46 for me, and another thing thats very personal, i think 3t makes the sexiest bars.

btw how come no pros seem to ride them any more, they just dont offer good deal or what?
 
Anything smaller than a 44cm to me feels like I'm holding onto both ends of a pencil. Too narrow and too twitchy for me. I prefer 46cm, with my wide chest and mountain biking background.
 
Originally posted by fushman
ya, around 46 for me, and another thing thats very personal, i think 3t makes the sexiest bars.
I've got the new 3T MORE carbon bars, and they're sexy, alright. Moreover, they've got a very nice shape, and some good bends in them. Highly recommended.
 

Similar threads