# Handlebar upgrade



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

I've been riding the stock "Bontrager" handlebars on my Trek 2.1 and noticing some things I feel could be better. I also notice lots of very affordable handlebars for sale in various sizes and designs.

Please tell me your opinions on these items:
1) "Anatomical" drops. Mine have a rounded shape that squeezes the width of hands when I ride in the drops. Do these work well?
2) Cable grooves. My bars don't have a cable groove and I didn't notice it until I looked for it. I guess this doesn't matter then.
3) Width. I think my bars are 44cm. I can't see 1cm/side making much difference - if I see a nice deal on a 42cm or 46cm, would it be better to wait for 44cm.
4) 31.8mm vs. 26mm. I know my original stem is 31.8, but curiosity compels me to wonder which size is preferred for which types of riding? 

Thanks as always.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> I've been riding the stock "Bontrager" handlebars on my Trek 2.1 and noticing some things I feel could be better. I also notice lots of very affordable handlebars for sale in various sizes and designs.
> 
> Please tell me your opinions on these items:
> 1) "Anatomical" drops. Mine have a rounded shape that squeezes the width of hands when I ride in the drops. Do these work well?
> ...


My opinions/ experiences:
1) I don't like the Bonty 'VR' bars for the reason you mentioned. I use the Specialized Pro 2 Road ergo bars:
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=56852
...but there are other choices like the Ritchey Logic ll Pro road bar and Easton's EA-50 Ergo bar.

2) FWIW, the Spec bars have front and rear grooves. Offhand, can't recall if the Ritchey's or Easton's do. 

3) If the width of your OEM bars suite you, measure them (c to c) and stick with them. If you _had_ to change, go up to 46. 

4) 31.8 has (more or less) become the standard bar clamp diameter. If for no other reason than it offers more stem and bar choices, I'd stay with it, but I'm skeptical there's any real advantages over the ~26mm clamps. BTW, in case you weren't aware, only the bar clamp diameter is larger. The bars themselves are the same diameter.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

1) I despise anatomical drops. Absolutely hate them. IMO they force your hands into ONE position in the drops, and it's not one I like for long-distance riding OR sprinting. I prefer a medium-depth classic bend on my road bike and a "short and shallow" style bar for my 'cross rig (the 2nd picture is not my bike, just an identical setup). Bars are like saddles, personal choice is key. The Ritchey bars use a variable reach/drop that scales with the width of bars which is a nice touch.

2) I like cable grooves, but if you've never noticed their presence or absence, it doesn't really matter. FWIW my brake housing (Yokozuna reaction) is MASSIVE and doesn't bother me.

3) My road bike came with 44cm bars and they actually bothered my shoulders. I was planning on swapping them out anyway since I didn't like the anatomic bend, but mon Dieu! The 1cm difference in hand position per side made a HUGE difference in comfort! General rule of fitting bars is they should be the same width as your shoulders. I don't buy the "wider bars let you breathe better" argument. Maybe it's because I used to do triathlons and am used to having my arms narrow... Anyway, stick with what works!

4) I agree with PJ352, 31.8 diameter these days will give you the most choice. Probably no "real" advantage unless you are putting down pro power in field sprints (and for that instance Shimano makes the Pro Vibe 7S which maintains the 31.8 dia. section until the bars bend forwards to the hoods).


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

On the width question, be aware that some manufacturers measure center-to-center, others measure outside-to-outside. That alone will make roughly 2cm difference in the effective bar width.

Further, the drops of some bars flare out wider than the tops, so you have to know not only _how_ they are measured but _where_ as well. The 3T Ergonova bars on my bike have a rated size of 42cm measured at the ends of the drops, but up at the hoods they're more like 38.5-39cm wide depending on exactly where you measure. (That probably sounds extremely narrow to you, but this dimension suits my narrow shoulders perfectly.)


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

aengbretson said:


> 1) I despise anatomical drops. Absolutely hate them. IMO they force your hands into ONE position in the drops, and it's not one I like for long-distance riding OR sprinting. I prefer a medium-depth classic bend on my road bike and a "short and shallow" style bar for my 'cross rig (the 2nd picture is not my bike, just an identical setup). Bars are like saddles, personal choice is key. The Ritchey bars use a variable reach/drop that scales with the width of bars which is a nice touch.
> 
> 2) I like cable grooves, but if you've never noticed their presence or absence, it doesn't really matter. FWIW my brake housing (Yokozuna reaction) is MASSIVE and doesn't bother me.
> 
> ...


Hmm, it seems this is just like shoes, shorts, saddles, and frames: you only know if it's "right" for you after doing a few 50+mi rides?

If so then maybe my inquisitive nature should quiet down and I should just buy a bar I know I can afford to replace if I really don't like it.

David


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

I think you can get an idea of a bar you'd like after a few rides with your current setup.


How often are you in the drops?
I use my drops to get low/aero quite often. Hence I have medium-depth bars with very usable drops. One of the things I don't like about anatomic/ergo bars is that the portion of the bars that is almost parallel to the ground is very short, almost impossible to grip in a sprint or for powering up short hills. On the other hand, if you don't use your drops very often you might want to switch to something like FSA's compact bend with a very shallow drop.

How big are your hands/fingers?
Seems kind of silly but some bars are designed with a shorter reach to the brakes and shift levers in mind.

How much do you value a flat transition from bar to hoods?
Many "modern" styles of bars are designed with a flat bar-to-hood setup in mind (see: FSA compact, Ritchey Logic, Shimano PRO).


If you ride in the drops all the time, consider a deeper bend. If you feel like you need that flat section in the middle of the drops, you may indeed prefer the "ergo" bend (also try FSA's "new ergo" - it is between the old ergo and new compact styles). If you have small hands or never use your drops, try a compact bend as it may open up new positions to you.

But you're right, bars are very much down to personal preference. Same goes for bar width. For example, Lance Armstrong is pretty much the exact same size as I am, but he prefers 44cm bars and I like 42cm ones (and as previously stated experience shoulder discomfort from having my hands spread wider).

Finally, I agree with not splurging on bars. A high-quality aluminum bar will be only a little bit heavier and you won't have to worry about durability.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> Hmm, it seems this is just like shoes, shorts, saddles, and frames: you only know if it's "right" for you after doing a few 50+mi rides?
> 
> If so then maybe my inquisitive nature should quiet down and I should just buy a bar I know I can afford to replace if I really don't like it.
> 
> David


I'd agree with those statements, and add that bar choice is (for the most part) a compromise based on your anatomy/ saddle to bar drop, preferences for hand position and riding style. IME a good choice meets your primary criteria and compomises on the less important aspects. 

You already have a classic bend type bar, and I think you'll find that (generally speaking) compact bends will have a similar contour to the drops as your VR bars, so I'd suggest going with something like the Ritchey Logic ll Pro bar.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

aengbretson said:


> One of the things I don't like about anatomic/ergo bars is that the portion of the bars that is almost parallel to the ground is very short, almost impossible to grip in a sprint or for powering up short hills.


Not everyone shares your views. 
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot...s/mark_cavendish_columbia_scott09/Picture_032


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> Not everyone shares your views.
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot...s/mark_cavendish_columbia_scott09/Picture_032


I knew someone would point this out 

But like you and I both said, it's personal preference. What works for me is uncomfortable for others and vice versa.

EDIT: I also haven't used Shimano's bars, so they could very easily have a different bend than Ritchey or FSA (and it would appear to be so).


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

aengbretson said:


> *I knew someone would point this out *
> 
> But like you and I both said, it's personal preference. What works for me is uncomfortable for others and vice versa.
> 
> EDIT: I also haven't used Shimano's bars, so they could very easily have a different bend than Ritchey or FSA (and it would appear to be so).


The devil made me do it.  

I haven't used the Shimano's either, but judging from Mr. C's bike, that model's lookin' pretty ergo!!


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

I should look at those, I like hanging out on the bar ends.. and while the speccy's are OK a bit more length would make it bueno.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

aengbretson said:


> I think you can get an idea of a bar you'd like after a few rides with your current setup.
> 
> 
> How often are you in the drops?
> I use my drops to get low/aero quite often. Hence I have medium-depth bars with very usable drops. One of the things I don't like about anatomic/ergo bars is that the portion of the bars that is almost parallel to the ground is very short, almost impossible to grip in a sprint or for powering up short hills. On the other hand, if you don't use your drops very often you might want to switch to something like FSA's compact bend with a very shallow drop.


I currently ride about 30% of the time in the drops, mostly when I'm riding solo and into the wind. In these cases I'm reaching deep into the bar and keeping my fingers within reach of the shifters. The other 70%, I'm on the tops or the hoods. So it seems the basic anatomic design could work well for me. My relaxed posture is with my hands behind the hoods holding the bar where it curves forward.



> [*]How big are your hands/fingers?
> 
> Seems kind of silly but some bars are designed with a shorter reach to the brakes and shift levers in mind.


My hands are on the large side. It seems that I should take care that the anatomic flat is long enough for the width of my hands. 

While a shorter reach seems interesting, I suspect I'm mostly indifferent to that.



> [*]How much do you value a flat transition from bar to hoods?
> 
> Many "modern" styles of bars are designed with a flat bar-to-hood setup in mind (see: FSA compact, Ritchey Logic, Shimano PRO).


I think I need to try some things out. I tend not to poke around in the really nice bikes when I visit the bike store (like an alcoholic avoiding the bar) but putting my hands on various handlebars might be a legitimate reason to do so.

On my weekly group ride I'll also ask to roll around the parking lot on some other rider's bikes so see if their handlebars strike my fancy.

David


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> I currently ride about 30% of the time in the drops, mostly when I'm riding solo and into the wind. In these cases I'm reaching deep into the bar and keeping my fingers within reach of the shifters. The other 70%, I'm on the tops or the hoods. So it seems the basic anatomic design could work well for me. My relaxed posture is with my hands behind the hoods holding the bar where it curves forward.
> 
> My hands are on the large side. It seems that I should take care that the anatomic flat is long enough for the width of my hands.
> 
> ...


Given what's offered here (mainly in the first paragraph), I think the Specialized Pro 2 road bar is worth a look. FWIW, the shallow drop version would probably be closer in reach/ drop to your current bars.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=56852


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Going from ergo to classic, to then "another ergo" bend, bar selection could be a trial and error thing. But what I observed:

First few months - I wanted a classic bend because my bike's handing was twitchy in the drops and I felt tight. 

Second few months - Had me a Shimano PRO PLT classic bar to extend reach int he drops.Climbing was included in my riding more and more. I then lengthened the stem for a more favorably-spaced hood and top placement, but then that stretched the drops possibly too far. Descents with tires I already didn't feel good on felt very insecure as I was weighing in too much on a front-heavy drop setup. It wasn't a reach against physical limits, but it felt unbalanced.

"Third" few months - another stem length increase was in question, but before I decided on that, I went for another ergo bend: Shimano PRO Vibe Sprint. Difference from the previous bend was that it was a bit tighter/smaller, and had a very discreet "bump" that I came to love. Actually seems more like a "compact" bend. Descending felt better, and especially moving up and down the bar.

Currently, I went for the stem swap, and it worked out well enough that my drop reach is comfortable. Would say I've reached perfection for the cockpit. I can do anything except time-trial. 

But yeah, in essence I would put out it's a trial and error thing as you may be contemplating stem preferences as well, being new to this "depth" in cycling. I'm also one to also promote the idea of using ergo or compact bends. There's nothing wrong, but yet nothing more hardcore about using classic bends. The potentially useful versatility of compact or ergo bends is just smart.


----------

