# Lightweight handlebars



## kbiker3111

I'm looking for ways to lighten up my bike and one of the heavy parts is handlebars. Currently I've got an FSA Energy Ergo bar from 2007. I'm looking for the easiest way to lose a few grams without breaking the bank.

Needed:
31.8 dia
44 cm width
round (no wings)

prefer:
Aluminum
deep drop (I think the FSA's are 140)
ergo or blended bend (something like bonti VR bend)
220 grams or less


----------



## Camilo

Do you know what your current bars weigh?

I don't have a lot of experience with aluminum bars, except that I own some Deda 215's (26.0) which are the same and weigh about the same as the Newtons (31.8). They are considered pretty darn light for alu bars and come in at around 230gm, not the 215-220 they claim. I also have some Deda Piega which are well, pigs at 330 grams.

On the other hand, these bars (both the 215 and Newton) are considered top quality bars and both come in three configurations: shallow/italian classic curve, deep/belgian classic curve and anatomic, which also has a fairly deep drop. Listed weights are about the same for all three. (FWIW, the Piega has exactly the same options for diameter and shape, just heavier).

You might check weight weenies for actual weights on aluminum bars for reality check when you start homing in on some.


----------



## kbiker3111

My FSA's were listed at 225 grams, but WW's has them listed at 260+. I've never gotten the chance to weigh them but even if they were 225 originally, they would be 275 with all the glue and cork bits that have built up over the years.


----------



## dadoflam

both FSA and Deda are notorious for inaccurate weights on their products - Camillo you have been very lucky to have the Newton's come in that light.
The only current 31.6 alloy bar that I can think of that comes in lighter than 220g is the KCNC bar - really only marginally lighter.


----------



## been200mph

ITM may be an option. Millenium or The Bar.


----------



## kbiker3111

Huh, I could do KCNC. How stiff are they? 

I don't need aluminum, I just don't think its worth spending big $$ on carbon bars where the same amount of money could save more weight elsewhere.


----------



## PBrooks

3t less 199, enough said for Al


----------



## dadoflam

there are a few older alloy bars in the 26.0 size that are lighter than the current oversize offerings - the old 3T 199 being one of them. I also have an old Cinelli deep drop anatomic which weighs 108g actual.
If you are not adverse to carbon there are a few older model bars available that will be lighter and can be picked up as clearance items within new alloy bar price range. I recently picked up a brand new 2009 Zipp SL bar (188g @ 46cm) for $150. Older Easton EC90 bars seem to crop up a lot and also the 26.0 size Kestrel carbon bars which are sub 180g and usually around $100.


----------



## bikerjulio

my EC90 bar is 200g exactly. was cheep too - new about $45 or something abt a year ago.


----------



## Camilo

dadoflam said:


> there are a few older alloy bars in the 26.0 size that are lighter than the current oversize offerings ...


True for Deda in 26.0 ("215") vs. the exact same bar in OS (Newton). In my post above I mentioned I thought that both had similar weights for the identical shapes, but according to weightweenies, it's not true. My 215's have an actual weight of 230 (advertised at 215 gm), and WW lists the Newtons at something like 260 actual. So there's an ounce difference just because of the OS design, without (IMHO) any advantage in function, regardless of what conventional wisdom is re: stiffness, etc. I therefore think this ounce, tiny as it may be, serves absolutely no purpose. Add to that the fact that - at least in Ritchey WCS and Syntace (the two I'm familiar with) the difference between identical stems, but 26.0 vs OS can be another 20 grams. Again, this is not a big deal and really pretty meaningless, but there's no reason for the weight premium.

And just to clarify a little: The 215's are a current offering, not really an older or out of date offering.



bikerjulio said:


> my EC90 bar is 200g exactly. was cheep too - new about $45 or something abt a year ago.


Same here. I have a set of the non-anatomic (are they called "pro"?) 26.0 EC90s and they are exactly 200 gm. I dropped an ounce moving to them from the Deda 215's which is really meaningless and not the primary advantage. Because of subtle differences in the shape, they're quite a bit more comfortable which is the most important thing. I'd like them better even if they were heavier.

I bought them a couple of years ago for around $60. If I can find another set for $45, I think I'll buy them! 

I really like the shape. Superficially, they're very similar to my Deda 215's "italian/shallow curve" - very similar in drop, reach and shape. But it turns out the EC 90s have a distinctly different transition in both curves - the "sweep forward" curve is sharper than the Dedas, therefore giving a bit longer top section and making my hand position on the tops more comfortable. The down curve is slightly different giving a different mounting for my current Ultegra 6500 series shifters. The best I can describe it is that the area where the shifters are mounted has a different horizontal-downward transition which gives me an angle on the hoods that is a little bit better for me. 

These are VERYsmall differences, but it makes them more comfortable for me. I sometimes wonder if the carbon fiber makes this different shape possible.

I'm switching to SRAM now and will wait to make any bar changes or buy additional EC90s until I see how the SRAM levers fit on the three bars I currently have.


----------



## jhamlin38

I wouldn't rule out Carbon. They do a great job killing rode vibe. I'd also say that spending more on bars is worth it.


----------



## Mr. Scary

Camilo said:


> True for Deda in 26.0 ("215") vs. the exact same bar in OS (Newton). In my post above I mentioned I thought that both had similar weights for the identical shapes, but according to weightweenies, it's not true. My 215's have an actual weight of 230 (advertised at 215 gm), and WW lists the Newtons at something like 260 actual. So there's an ounce difference just because of the OS design, without (IMHO) any advantage in function, regardless of what conventional wisdom is re: stiffness, etc. I therefore think this ounce, tiny as it may be, serves absolutely no purpose. Add to that the fact that - at least in Ritchey WCS and Syntace (the two I'm familiar with) the difference between identical stems, but 26.0 vs OS can be another 20 grams. Again, this is not a big deal and really pretty meaningless, but there's no reason for the weight premium.
> 
> And just to clarify a little: The 215's are a current offering, not really an older or out of date offering.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I have a set of the non-anatomic (are they called "pro"?) 26.0 EC90s and they are exactly 200 gm. I dropped an ounce moving to them from the Deda 215's which is really meaningless and not the primary advantage. Because of subtle differences in the shape, they're quite a bit more comfortable which is the most important thing. I'd like them better even if they were heavier.
> 
> I bought them a couple of years ago for around $60. If I can find another set for $45, I think I'll buy them!
> 
> I really like the shape. Superficially, they're very similar to my Deda 215's "italian/shallow curve" - very similar in drop, reach and shape. But it turns out the EC 90s have a distinctly different transition in both curves - the "sweep forward" curve is sharper than the Dedas, therefore giving a bit longer top section and making my hand position on the tops more comfortable. The down curve is slightly different giving a different mounting for my current Ultegra 6500 series shifters. The best I can describe it is that the area where the shifters are mounted has a different horizontal-downward transition which gives me an angle on the hoods that is a little bit better for me.
> 
> These are VERYsmall differences, but it makes them more comfortable for me. I sometimes wonder if the carbon fiber makes this different shape possible.
> 
> I'm switching to SRAM now and will wait to make any bar changes or buy additional EC90s until I see how the SRAM levers fit on the three bars I currently have.


The change from 26.0 to 31.8 has been driven by two things:

1. Desire to commonize sizes for road and mountain.
2. Stronger bar to meet the new EN testing requirements. So the aluminum bars all gained weight but also gained strength.

The difference in shape has nothing to do with the material, any of the variable radius bars will share a similar bend to your EC90 (even in aluminum). The 215 is an older style of bend (available in anatomic, shallow or Italian drop, and Belgian or deep drop). Most newer bikes seem to come with some version of the variable radius bar.


----------



## apoint

ec90 eastons carbon, CANT BE BEAT..........


----------



## Camilo

Mr. Scary said:


> The change from 26.0 to 31.8 has been driven by two things:
> 
> 1. Desire to commonize sizes for road and mountain.
> 2. Stronger bar to meet the new EN testing requirements. So the aluminum bars all gained weight but also gained strength.
> 
> The difference in shape has nothing to do with the material, any of the variable radius bars will share a similar bend to your EC90 (even in aluminum). The 215 is an older style of bend (available in anatomic, shallow or Italian drop, and Belgian or deep drop). Most newer bikes seem to come with some version of the variable radius bar.


Are they really inherently stronger? 

As for my EC90s, the modeI have (EC90 Equipe Pro) do not have a variable radius curve. They are a traditional curve, like I said, very similar to my dedas just a little different. 









compared to the Deda 215 Italians I also have:


----------



## Mr. Scary

Camilo said:


> Are they really inherently stronger?
> 
> As for my EC90s, the modeI have (EC90 Equipe Pro) do not have a variable radius curve. They are a traditional curve, like I said, very similar to my dedas just a little different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to the Deda 215 Italians I also have:


Oh the original release Equipes... They were still better than the 215 bend, I agree but I prefer the VR bends (especially the FSA with the 4 degree outward bend).


----------



## Camilo

Mr. Scary said:


> Oh the original release Equipes... They were still better than the 215 bend, I agree but I prefer the VR bends (especially the FSA with the 4 degree outward bend).


Yes, definitely better than the 215's both on the top-forward transition bend and the bends themselves. I'm going to see if either of them work well with my new Sram shifters. If not, I'll start shopping again. My daughter has the Bontrager version of the VR type bars and they look really nice and comfortable with modern shifters. They're too small for me, but I might try them just to see if the shifter position is good and if the drops feel secure to me. I like the feel in the drops of the conventional type of bar because they have long flat ends in the drops. I just don't feel confident in the drops w/ bars that are shorter there, like most "anatomic" or "ergo" bars. I also don't like the way those ergo bars feel in the "hooks" when you're trying to keep your fingers on the brake or shifter levers - just don't line up for me correctly. Don't know about the VR type, they might be a good compromise.

I'm hoping I'll be happy with the Sram shifters on the Easton bars,


----------



## apoint

My new Carbon Easton ec 90, 31.6, without bartape. They usually wt about 200 g. These were 210g, plenty light and very comfy curves. Shimano Ultegra shifters shown.


----------



## kbiker3111

Seems like I need to be on the lookout for a pair of EC90s. Thanks everyone.


----------



## apoint

Iv had easton ec 90 on both my road bikes. wont buy anything else. You can find a new or like new ones on ebay for about $100 if ya look a couple days. I bought these for $80 and love them. Sure cant beat that price for this quality and wt.200g


----------



## LOUISSSSS

I'm using ritchey was aluminum handlebars and stem. About $60/ea. When buying i was looking for light weight, bling, and cheap.


----------



## kbiker3111

LOUISSSSS said:


> I'm using ritchey was aluminum handlebars and stem. About $60/ea. When buying i was looking for light weight, bling, and cheap.


What do they weigh?


----------



## apoint

kbiker3111 said:


> What do they weigh?


 I dont know if this answers your question but the Ritchey WCS aluminum bars I took off weighed 251g. The Easton ec 90 carbon bars are 200 or 210g.
I left the ritchey stem on 31.8x100 because it only weighs 120g, pretty darn lite.
I took off the Ritchey post at 258g and replaced it with a Token seatpost 31.6x300 at 184g.
excellent seatpost and lite.


----------



## bikerjulio

My EC90 in "traditional" bend.


----------



## LOUISSSSS

kbiker3111 said:


> What do they weigh?


stem: 100mm - 112g $58
handlebar: Logic II 40mm - 248g $60
seatpost: thomson masterpiece setback - 192g - $100
saddle: Selle SMP Stratos - 252g - $200


----------



## apoint

Iv had this 2010 Addict R2, 2 weeks.its a 56 CM. Compact crank, 11x25 cass. out of the box with look pedals 15.9.
Iv changed the seat, bars, post, tires,so far. Wt with pedals 15.5 lb. Without pedals 15 lb.


----------



## Camilo

LOUISSSSS said:


> stem: 100mm - 112g $58
> handlebar: Logic II 40mm - 248g $60
> seatpost: thomson masterpiece setback - 192g - $100
> saddle: Selle SMP Stratos - 252g - $200


I don't have any photos to post (bike is now in pieces getting rebuilt), but, in a similar budget weight weenie vein (but my stuff is 26.0 bar diameter and 27.2 seat post). There is very good quality, light weight stuff out there at affordable prices, just not the absolute lightest or blingiest.

Stem: Syntace F99 105 mm: 100 g $60 new (Ebay) 
[also use on other bike: Ritchey WCS 90 mm: 110 g $60 new (Ebay)

Bar: Easton EC90 Equipe Pro, 42mm: 200 g $75 new (Ebay)
[also use on other bike: Deda 215 shallow drop, 40mm: 230 g $75 new (Pro Bike Kit)]

Seatpost: Forte Precision Carbon, 350mm long: 162 g $45 (Performance)

Saddle: E3 Form Ti: 194g $40 (Performance and Nashbar, no longer available.... My favorite saddle of all time at any cost!)


----------



## LOUISSSSS

apoint said:


> Iv had this 2010 Addict R2, 2 weeks.its a 56 CM. Compact crank, 11x25 cass. out of the box with look pedals 15.9.
> Iv changed the seat, bars, post, tires,so far. Wt with pedals 15.5 lb. Without pedals 15 lb.


what wheelset u got? not trying to call your bluff (well, maybe) but can you post a pic of the bike on a scale to show the 15.5? 

I know scott frames are light, but my 566 (size 51) with all upgraded parts and sram red weigh 15lb8oz (15.5lbs)


----------



## apoint

LOUISSSSS said:


> what wheelset u got? not trying to call your bluff (well, maybe) but can you post a pic of the bike on a scale to show the 15.5?
> 
> I know scott frames are light, but my 566 (size 51) with all upgraded parts and sram red weigh 15lb8oz (15.5lbs)


Sorry for taking so long to get back. These wts are with pedals and without pedals. I havent changed out my tires yet. Tires are conti 700x25, quite heavy. Wheels are stock Mavic Elites. This bike can easily go into the low 14 lb mark as you can see. First pic no pedals.


----------



## apoint

Second pic with pedals


----------



## apoint

The bran new bad boy as you see it. 2010 Addict R2 size 56 CM, with heavy 700x25 conti and mavic elites, and look pedals. 15.4 lbs
It was 16 lbs out the box. The only things Iv changed are the seat, seatpost, handle bars, 11x25 cassett. It came with a compact crank. Ultegra group. Elites.
I just changed out my tires today and lost 80g. Its now easily below 15 1/2 lb with pedals.


----------



## dhtucker4

As far as I know, only Deda alloy bars have a deep or Belgian drop. They are triple-butted and reasonably light.


----------



## GiantTCR

EC90 would be your best bet for light, affordable and dependable.


----------

