@@robertchandler587 that’s interesting. I went from 172.5 to 165 and saw my average power meter numbers go up slightly. I attribute that to ease of being able to generate power on a climb with a greater hip angle. My test is far from scientific though. The 165s just also feel better, can spin easier.
@@robertchandler587 oh sorry. I read your reply incorrectly. Yeah, shorter cranks are all the rage. I wonder how short is too short. If 165s are this good, maybe I should try 160s.
I want to try 165’s but trying to find them seems to be tough for road and MTB. Nobody seems to have them in stock to fit my 12 year old Madone or non-Boost gravel bike.
I like narrower bars more because the arm position feels much more natural. I usually ride with 38cm nowadays, because with 42cm in the aero tuck position it feels like I twist my shoulders a bit outwards, if you know what I mean. And carbon handlebars are marginally stiffer if they are narrower. This can be a downside or benefit, depending on the terrain you are riding.
Have you measured your shoulders? The distance between your acromions (plus 2cm) is probably around 38cm if it feels more natural on that width of bar.
Same here. I have narrow shoulders and 38 is my go-to. Though 36-38 without flare is horrible for sprinting. There's no leverage and the whole thing is super twitchy.
I wouldn't frame it as narrower bars feel more natural. You simply didn't have the correct bar width to match your shoulder width. It's not any different than having your saddle too high-it's all about getting the right fit.
@@frozenbean well I'm 6"ft and I have measured my shoulder width to be 40,5cm, so I initially rode with 40cm bars, but then I tried 38cm and even 36cm and I like how this somehow naturally lets you fall into a TT Position. Having your Arms in front of your body instead of on your side, just feels more comfortable to me. But I also love the very narrow TT-Position on a TT-Bike maybe that is why.
as usual, great video Jeff. I think one adjustment to the procedure would be to add 1cm to the stem on the narrower bars. With a constant elbow angle the narrower bars decrease your effective reach pushing your torso slightly up and this may be negating any potential savings.
I've run those 37/42 Enve bars for 3 years now. I get it about minimal benefit from going narrower, but there is also a comfort benefit to the flare, and keeping a wider grip in the drops makes it the best all around bar for me. I'll never go back to a straight bar.
I recently had a Whisky Components carbon bar come to me on a used bike. A 6° flare, you couldn't tell unless you knew it had a flare, that it was flared. Had to really look at it. But this is what made me switch to having all my levers turned in. And ive even thought about buying more of those Whisky bars with that same flare. I could feel the difference! Soon, I should another one of my bikes, and had the levers turned in.... later that week, he told me he loved what I did with the bars, and raved to me about how comfortable it was! This was back in 2022, right about when we saw this becoming normal in the pro peloton, but way before anyone else was really mentioning it. Ride on my friend! Happy riding!
I did not realize how controversial the shorter format is. Kudos to you. Straight to the point real world. Your last couple videos have converted me from an occasional watcher to an avid follower.
Cool experiment. I love the clarity of how there IS a difference, but what is it really and does it really matter. It's worth noting that some people believe that the 'conventional' (of the last 20-30 yrs) width bars are ergonomically suboptimal for the average rider too. That we should be running slightly narrower than the normal rules of thumb for fit reasons. Not sure how you'd really test that practically but...
37cm would be too narrow for my taste, but I feel way more comortable since I switched from 42 to 40. Thanks to Francis Cade for his videos with the bike fitter.
Great video Jeff, one note on how the narrower bar allows you to get into a more aero position, the flare of the bar puts the top off the hoods closer to 33-35cm. By grabbing near the end of the hoods in the “aero hoods position” the flare allows you to roll your arms and shoulders in quite a bit tighter. I’d be interested what kind of gains would result from that sort of position
I would love to see a video about just using an aero weel in the front. The rationale for this is that the air turbulence at the rear is significant enough to make the weight savings from a lighter rear wheel more beneficial than the aerodynamic advantages. Thanks for the amazing content.
I was running 40cm bars on my first couple of bikes. I always wanted the bars to be a little bit more narrow while on rides. When I picked up my new bike I decided to use 38cm bars and it’s a great fit for me. I am a smaller rider. I am 5’7” tall and the narrower bars fit me better. For racing or unless you are a smaller rider I think narrower bars is a better “fit”. Otherwise there is not purpose in feeling uncomfortable just to look cooler or for the marginal gains.
Shoulder width has a factor and the fit with narrower bars like 36 - 38cm fits much better to having narrow shoulders as do I. Also completely agree with the position change, you can get into a narrower TT type of position with your forearms on the tops of the bars while holding onto the hoods ( I call it Tadej style).
I always found 42 too wide, I didn't try more narrow but I like 39 way more. Also, the biggest positive surprise when I started experimenting with my steer and break handles was that I find handlebars pointing inward so much more comfortable to ride for my wrists. Also that way to rest your wrist on the steer while in aero position is nice.
Maybe the new formula for fit is handlebar width should be twice crank arm length, e.g. if running 170mm crank arms, handlebars should be 34 cm, if 160mm cranks, 32 cm handlebars. Seems correct, at least for track bikes, crit bikes should be similar...@@anthonyharris483
I’m 6’6” and unapologetically use 36cm bars with a 140mm stem. In terms of aero watts the drag is 1w per cm. So very marginal. The biggest advantage is that you can be in any hand position and still have body between other riders. So there is less to protect when in close contact with other riders. Your handlebars are totally protected by your arms regardless of hand positioning on the bars. I can’t really comment on sprinting because I have never been good at it but in my case I have tried 46cm bars before and it didn’t make any difference. If anything having the narrow bars feels like driving a sports car vs the wider feels like driving a U-Haul
What I missed in this video is your shoulder width (or I am deaf/blind). I remember you saying you were relatively broad shouldered? What about 42 vs 37 cm handlebars on someone with
I have 37cm shoulders and have been running 32.5cm AeroCoach Ornix bars on one bike and 35cm Enve SES Aero bars on another bike. I've gotten used to the AeroCoach bars and the Enves feel like a big yellow schoolbus steering wheel. They key for aero gains is to change your fit accordingly. Per 2cm lost in width, most people should add 1cm in stem length. Tuck your elbows in and make sure the fit doesn't result in the knees+elbow interference at TDC.
Narrow bars for me feel much more natural and comfortable and that’s why I always add them. Anything else is bonus. Same with flat top/aero bars being more comfortable to rest my hands while on long climbs. Plus better cable management and look.
the largest benefit to different bar widths is overall fit/comfort, narrower shoulders=narrower bars, 42 cm are often too wide for the average cyclist...small bonus is the marginal aero advantage
Surprised by the results, but love that this vid was short and sweet. Jeff, I'm reasonably local to you, ride a 54cm Soloist with the same Enve bars, have Assioma power pedals, and love geeking out over A/B comparisons like the ones you've been recently doing (have done a few myself actually). Hmu if you'd like to collaborate and have an additional data point for any future vids.
I currently use 40cm drop which is not that narrow and wide, it's perfect where i can sprint easily on the drop and be narrow at the tops if I needed to be aero
I know there was some elevation to go through but 4 seconds saved at 22mph ( 35,2 km/h) is not small IMO. Increase the speed and distance a little bit and this difference would be bigger. Additionally, both handlebars have aero profiles, so if someone is considering switching from non-aero bar to narrower aero bar, then again they can expect a bit more gains.
Imagine being in a breakaway and getting 4 seconds just because of a narrower handlebar. Poor all these riders who were caught by the peloton on the last meters! As long as it does not make you uncomfortable and less aero, I think a narrower handlebar is the best choice for an upgrade.
After4 years of in wind tunnel testing, I feel that the flared drops did effect your numbers. Retest with non flared 37mm bars. There should be less turbulence. less watts.
I'm glad you shared these results. I was actually thinking about purchasing narrower bars for my road bike. Based on your findings, I just need to focus more on my body position instead.
Good to know, thx. I had my doubts when choosing new bar, but i choose the wider one, due to shoulder width and comfort for my body/built. I focus on my own body position, which has way more possible gains.. thx 🙏
Great Videos! It would be great if you could test the penalty of bottles on the downtube. It would be especially interesting to know if there is a difference between an aero frame and a normal frame (assuming that the penalty should be bigger for an aero frame). And if you have one bottle already, does a second make any significant difference? There are quite some wind-tunnel tests, but as always they do not represent real life, and especially not normal roadbike setups. Thx!
Could you test whether the narrower bars will impact your power for shorter periods (10s, 30s, 60s)? I imagine that the drops will feel the same if they indead have the same leverage when getting out of the saddle, but it might be interesting to test on a trainer or on a flat sprint section.
your bikefit also changes when getting a narrower bar, so the reason why the narrow effect didnt work might be beacause you need a little longer stem to have the same upper body height from the ground - good video, straight to the point, no bs
I'm 6'4" and new bikes in my size usually come with 46cm bars. I recently tried 42cm bars and canted the controls inward just slightly. Wow, the comfort difference was incredible.
How do you see 300W delivered to the crank be different from 300W delivered to the crank? The only difference there might be the feel or maybe marginal increase in cornering pedaling clearence, which is not really quantifiable
@@АнтонАлексеенко_044 more people are realizing that shorter cranks allows them to more comfortably pedal at a higher cadence, which is more efficient and transfers the effort from your legs to your heart. crank length on most bikes are a little too big imo. not sure how NorCal cycling would test this tho..
I've always ran 172.5 cranks for about thirty years, started doing more aero rides as I can get pretty low and still make power over a longer period of time, tried 165mm cranks and then finally went to 152mm cranks. I can go for quite a while in an aero position on the 152's. There are trade offs for sure but I wouldn't go back, but then again I'm fifty years old so anything that's easier on the hips I like lol
I'm probably about the same height as you, maybe a bit broader in shoulders. Definitely going a little bit narrower than used to be customary is a lot more comfortable for me. It keeps my wrists in a more natural position. I've never gone all the way to 37, so I don'tknow how it would feel. But 40 is good for me with drops that don't flair much. If I still raced crits (and younger!) I might go more narrow for reasons you mentioned.
Jeff testing the real shit out there!! And on the bike I ride, can’t hate that. I wonder if there is a limit on savings going narrower once it gets narrower than your shoulders bc you can’t bring them in much more. Like if you want 45 to 40 would that be bigger savings - I suspect it might, would be cool, but difficult to test
I don't think there is, based on Jan-Willem van Schip. He's a Dutch track cyclist (2x world champion). Even at his size (6'4", 185), he rides with 30 cm bars even in road races and would go lower but for UCI rules. He's a known aero nut, he must've tested it out and found the speed difference outweights the uncomfortability. He's a professional though. I don't think your average amateur club rider really needs to ride on such monstrosities...
Someone probably already wrote it/been done by others, but I would like to see diference in inner tubes done by you. Butyl - Latex - TPU - Tubeless. I came from butyl to latex and thought it was incredible performance boost in rolling resistance but it could also be placebo.
Great stuff Jeff. We're loving this controlled comparison series. Test idea - Compliant vs. stiff bike? Get two cervelos (endurance vs. race) and get the geometry the same, same wheelset, hidden cables, equalize their weight. Then test it using your protocol plus one with intervals/surges (ie., crits). i've got two bikes and the stiff one feels faster (it also beats me up), but is it really faster??
Appreciate the video as it helped me squelch that inner money waster that wanted to replace the expensive carbon aero bars that my bike came with for a slightly narrower version.
Narrow bars don't work for me. I have broad shoulders and when I dropped down to 40cm bars, my back muscles would eventually lock up and restrict my breathing, which is slow. I use 44cm bars. This happened to me on both road and track bikes. Does this only happen to me?
I got 47 cm wide shoulders, ride 44 cm bars and am happy so far. On narrower bars I have to collapse my shoulders which doesn’t feel and can’t be good.
I have both 38 and 40cm on two different bikes. The 38 feels like I am flexing my core muscles more especially on climbs, this in turns causes more fatique. I am by no means have very wide shoulders but prefer sticking with 40cm. The flare tho.. makes me "feel" faster on the break. Thanks for clarifying this~
The test was only run with one rider (with a larger frame body). I think a smaller/narrower rider would benefit more from the narrower bars. The wide bars would put the arms well beyond the outer perimeter of the torso for a narrower rider. It would be interesting to see it tested that way.
I ran a 42cm before and now a 38cm, it helps me to be more relaxed in the shoulders and the grip on the hoods now fits like a glove, also my somewhat turned in hoods play a role in that hood feeling too.
I really like these videos. What I tend to think of as an average cyclist is energy saved over a 4 to 6 hour ride in different conditions (like head winds). On longer rides the small savings really add up, maybe not in speed but effort.
I find this interesting, i just got a 1970s, Schwinn Chicago road bike, and my handle bars are 35cm, with slightly turned in, brake levers, which seems to be what the "new" riding style is trying to be.
I am of the opinion that you shouldn't change out to narrower bars if you are chasing speed. Handle bar length should be aligned with your shoulders and proportional to your build. If you choose something wider or narrow than what your body's structure determines, you will ultimately feel very uncomfortable, which could lead to shoulder stress and strain especially over the course of long rides. Just get a bike fit; when I did, the first thing changed out were my handlebars. Once I got used to the new ones, which only took a couple of rides, I felt at one with my bike. 😃👍
It would be cool to see a comparison of traditionally lubed vs waxed chains. I know a lot of guys who have switched to wax for performance reasons and I’m curious how much of a difference it really makes.
For me, I switched to wax not for the efficiency claims but because it makes your drivetrain last longer. According to Zero Friction Cycling's cost to run calculator, I'll save about $70 over 10,000km by switching from the best oil-based lube to a middle of the road wax. Also I run a 3x8 speed drivetrain so parts are pretty cheap. You'll probably save more if you're running modern 11 or 12-speed stuff
@@fleurdelispens my chains last over 15,000km running pure parrafin wax. Super cheap aud$25 for 5kg (used only 1/3 of this in 7 years across 7 bikes). Only use a rag and boiling water to degrease. Saves so much time, cost, and effort. The only pain is degreasing the chain initially (I follow the Friction Facts recommendation of Mineral Turpentine to degrease, and Methlyated Spirits to strip the chain of any remaining turps). The improved chain efficiency is just a bonus. I can ride 300-400km between waxings (depending on dust and water exposure). Edit: I should note I only run 10, 9 and 8 speed chains to 0.75 wear mark on Park Tool chain checker.
@@richardggeorge I bought Silca's super secret wax and their degreaser for the convenience. That bag of wax means I don't even need a crock-pot; just drop the bag in a pot of boiling water. The degreaser also makes chain prep a super simple one-step process.
@@fleurdelispens that sounds very handy! That Silca wax is really expensive here in Australia (20 times more expensive than my paraffin wax and my dedicated slow cooker was only $15 from Kmart). I am tight a$$ though.
I am testing a 38 handlebar after 42. Man after you try a 38, you will feel like a flag with 42 handlebar. I am a small guy, so the 38 might be more comfortable on rides over 200 km. Two drawbacks I have noticed. #1 The bike will be less stable on gravel/unpaved roads. #2 You can barely mount anything. One Garmin mount, one bell and there is no more place left. If you want to carry bikepacking stuff on the handlebar, use 44 at least.
As someone who has been running 38s for years, for the “areo gains” it’s great to be put in my place. Narrower is more comfortable for me. Comfortable is smooth and smooth is fast.
Great video! Thanks Jeff. This season is have decided to angle my hoods in. I run stock bars on my BMC RoadMachine, but have found that the feel on the angled hoods is way more comfortable for me. Screw the UCI :)
ooh this would be good, test it in the center back pocket of the jersey...THEN test it with the bottle tucked into the jersey like the pros do with their vests or motogp racers aero attachment near the neck..great idea
Love the comparison videos! What I’d like to see compared are a modern round tube titanium or steel frame versus a recent aero bike. Both with racing geometry, fully integrated aero cockpit, same components and wheels. Obviously vintage metal bikes are slower, but what if everything except for the frame is the same?
The big lie-by-ommission with round tubing when they say it is less aero (creates drag behind the tail edge of the tubing) is they never make a comparison between the much broader carbon tubes versus much narrower metal tubes. The GCN "bro science" textbook analysis which they always love to make when they show the little picture of the different tubing shapes and the drag profile it makes basically assumes an equal frontal area, which in real life they are not. I do almost exclusively time trialing (10 mile specialty) and thousands of hours of my data on the same courses daily for over a decade has shown almost no statistical advantage between my preferred trainer (a 1992 Merlin titanium with shallow rims and round 32 spokes) versus several of my brand new carbon aero bikes (all of which have almost identical geometry; all my aero bikes having 60mm carbon rims with low spoke count bladed spokes and integrated cables on all aero bikes. Also, most of my aero bikes have a similar weight to my old titanium, which is another cruel joke the bike industry has played on us all). The time differences between my aero bikes versus my Merlin titanium is within margin of error. You simply could not ever discern any difference using any scientific method when doing real-world testing on the course. It will always be within margin of error of under (+/-) 6 seconds or so over the 10 mile TT's I do. In fact, most of my PR's were made with my Merlin bike. Sadly, the only thing my aero bike consistently gets me that I can say is absolute, is a more nerve racking experience when there are side winds.
@alexjohnson6462 interesting. I find my Dogma F10 woth aero wheels on on crosswinds is more stable than my C40 as a package. However, I recently did another test just this past weekend for one last time as all previous tests were so close. The F10 vs C40 have identical fit coordinates, aero shaped 36cm bars, and same 60mm wheels swapped between tests and utilizing same Assioma dual sided PM. My results were on back to back and switching between bikes to limit environmental change. And I did first test with 350 watts on uphill portion from set point to point with 250 watts on down hill, average speed was 26 on C40 and 26.1 on F10. And 2nd test was consistent 300 watts for 10 mins whilst maintaining aero hoods position. F10 was 26.2 mph, and C40 was 25.8mph.
@@alexjohnson6462 According to “bro science” and marketing, a metal frame with round tubes should basically make you go backwards.😁 But they often compare vintage material to modern bikes. Metal frame builders have finally caught up and are offering very clean looking, fully integrated aero cockpits, which has renewed my interest. A direct comparison should be interesting. I suspect that the majority of aerodynamic gains are made at the front and that everything behind the bottles and knees is largely insignificant because of turbulence, at least in the real world. Your testing seems to suggest the same.
@@tommyfreckmann6857 While the C40 is neither metal nor has it round tubes, it is a stunning bike and definitely an interesting one to compare with a more modern bike. So from your test it looks like on the Colnago you’re loosing just under 1 second per kilometer on a flat stretch at 42kph. That’s actually more than I had expected. My hunch was that modern aero bikes, at least in real world turbulent conditions, almost exclusively benefit from their clean front ends, i.e. aero cockpit, wheel and fork.
Hang on though, if you narrow the bars you have to either move the saddle back or use a longer stem. If not you'll be sitting more upright. Or am I missing something??
I was also expecting a bigger difference. I want to try 38cm from my 410cm to see how comfortable it is as my hands always seem to settle inwards on my current setup.
Good comparison and good size video, thank you. But any comparison brings more questions. Comparing for same power is good (yes, more measurements would increase statistical significance as mentioned before) but what about max power or sustaining more power for longer? Something else that could play a role is that size comparisons can not be absolute but relative to your shoulders/body/way you produce power. If your ideal would be 40 both 42 and 37 could be off by a similar amount.
I am 182 cm tall, 82 kg, and I got myself 38 cm bars on all my drop bar bikes, even my gravel bike. Why? Because when I close my eyes and reach out with my arms in front, at a comfortable position my hands end up at approx 34-36 cm apart.
I would rather have the comfort of the wider 42'' bar mainly because I am broad shouldered.Let's face it gaining 4s over a course of 15 minutes ain't worth all the hype.Thank you for confirming this.
do it again, but stay tucked down in a super aero position. How long can you hold that position for each bar (for the full 14 minute?). What is your heart rate and power for both runs... this will show if you are working harder (for the same wattage) to hold that aero position on the wider bars (compared to the narrow bars).
I use a 46cm bar due to wide shoulders, narrow bars are just plain uncomfortable and changing normal bars to flared bars is plain uncomfortable. I also dumped my flared bars and am much happier, I don't race road bikes though.
The problem with this test was that the stem length wasn't factored in. This is probably why the difference was small. Effectively the reach was shortened when the bar width was made narrower. It would be like changing crank length without adjusting your saddle or going for a wider tire and using the same tire pressure.
Might have missed this in the video but how many runs did you do with each setup? For this test protocol to be anywhere near statistically valid, you would need several data points. I mean like several dozen runs, done back to back, in both directions (cw and ccw).
A marginal gain showing up in five miles is significant when you're talking races that are decided by seconds. And for those who race endurance or gravel such a gain can equates to 2.5 minutes over the course of my A race. All things being equal - you have the money - why not change? Additionally, as a smaller rider, I'm often forced to bin the bits like cranks, saddles and bars with which a bike ships. Even one otherwise sized for me. So I swapped out the 44s my bike came with immediately for those exact bars (+ aero extensions + 165 cranks and a 14mm saddle.)
I recently switched from the 44cm bars my bike came with to 38s. The new bar is labeled 40, but the manufacturer measures from the outside edge instead of the center. I made the switch only because the narrower bar fits my shoulder width better. Do I expect it'll be faster in any of my riding? Maybe, but not so much I'll be able to measure it.
Everything old is new again... In the '80s (and before), women ran 38s, guys ran 40s on the road and 38s on the track. The real question was which Cinelli profile you liked. Modolo caused a stir when they released the 'ergo' bar in the mid-late '80s with a flattened bend for you to grab in the drops. The widths got wider in the 90s IIRC. With all the options available, it really should come down to personal preference. There's not enough marginal gain to justify riding bars that don't fit your body/style just for the sake of a second/mile. I mostly ride a gravel bike these days, and I prefer the Salsa Woodchipper in a 44cm width. Suboptimal for road riding, but nice control for chunky descents.
As a rider of larger stature, could you comfortably ride 37cm bars during longer rides? Would the narrow bars impact your control of the bike during descents or sprints if they did not have an aggressive flare from the drops to the ends?
as someone currently deliberating on bar width, could you share any details on the quantitative and qualitative differences you feel while sprinting? as a sprinter myself, definitely don’t want to lose leverage and therefore power, but wondering where that tipping point is… would greatly value your input, Jeff!
4 seconds sounds minimal, but 4 seconds at 22.1 mph = 130 feet. So at the finish, the gap between the narrow bars and the wide bars was ~1.5 basketball courts!
Very useful verification. I see your riding form of front view ,your elbow little bit wider I think.(at 370mm handlebar) When narrow setup ,elbow position like TT style.(I thought)
I'm still interested in narrower bars purely because I have all the signs of discomfort related to bars being too wide. I tend to roll my hands and shoulders inward a lot, and can't help but feel I'd just be more comfortable on a narrower front end. Just haven't made the investment yet!
If your shoulders aren't flexible and anthropometrically they are quite wide you won't benefit from narrower bars.. It's like a TT position. If you can't hold it physically there is no point of lowering front end and narrowing arm rests etc. First comfort, right fit, then speed))
on the cheaper aero Canyon frames, you can't get a narrower handlebar. It depends on your stem length. We don't need flared handlebars though either. I don't want to get hooked like a f'ing fish in the sprint.
Why not test at actual race speeds? I'd assume its a much higher delta between 22mph and 28-30mph like you'd see in a p12 crit. I get that it's hard to keep the speed that high on your own but why not bring a motorpacer and see what the data says. I bet it'll show a bigger difference between the 2 widths at higher avg speeds. Sick video as always!
like you mentioned it's hard to ride 28-30 solo for 15+ minutes multiple times 😅. also hard to find a motorpace to help production. Not to mention that adds another variable... how close was i to the moto? was it the same between runs? did he keep a constant speed, what about uphill vs downhill? this is all too complicated to test, but i appreciate the suggestion!
@@NorCalCyclingit would be like a derny. You maintain the steady power output and derny paces in front of you while you tell him or her faster or slower. Sure there would be some variances, but I bet you could keep it really steady for 15 mins, long enough to get quality data. Love the technical stuff. Nice change of pace from race reviews. keep em coming!
I'm revisiting this video after an extensively looking into this narrow handlebar aero thing. Few things I found are: 1. The lower/more aggressive you go, the smaller the difference. This could explain why the effects on you are not that significant. This is well illustrated in the Cycling Weekly video ( ruclips.net/video/sLEm2KziCVc/видео.html&ab_channel=CyclingWeekly ). At (9:33) it shows that the biggest gain comes at a relaxed hood position which is quite upright (45 degree torso angle, with a whopping 34.4 watts saving), but when you get into that aero hoods position it shrinks to just 10 Watts. Because your position is so good so I guess that partly explains why the result. 2. There's a starting point to see significant gains, and the point of diminished return seems very far away (well below 30cm). That means if you go from 46 to 44 probably you won't see much difference because in either case you just can't hide your arm in front of your body. They are the same 2 cylinders sticking out in the air. But if you go from 42 to 38, assume your shoulder width is 40, then that could be a significant gain. Then again, after that point the narrower you go, the more similar you are with a TT position. And that diminished point of return seems at well below 30cm. So I think maybe you can try some much more aggressive bars like those Worx ones, or some 32cm cheap Fouriers ones, to see if you can get a more significant benefit? I think if that's a little bit significant than this then it's a worth in a breakaway situation or sprint. In a practical point of view, I think you will see the narrower bar taking over especially in the amateurs in the next few years. Because they are the most benefited -- they ride that 45 degree relaxed position the most. Good racers like you can just get into that aero position -- no reason to ride at 45 kph in upright position, and the narrower effect would be much smaller. While it's those who can't get into that same aero position now get significantly reduced drag from the narrow bars without becoming more flexible. This along will push the change because finally the bikes are sold to amateurs, instead of something like BB stiffness that nobody can actually feel, this one is much so real. This seems to be the most low hanging fruit right now. As a result of my "pursuit" I finally jumped on the train and got the PRO Aero Pursuit alloy handlebar which is 36 c-c at hoods and 40 c-c at drops with flat aero top and a reasonable price. In no way I'll do some controlled science but during my test run it seems in my usual fast sections I now hit 44.x kph consistently while before it's 42.x, never seen anything 44 so that really pops up when I see the data after ride. I don't think handling is something that's noticeable if not even more stable, but as a bonus point it turns out that it's the first time that I get the hoods position right - Now I can wrap the hoods with my hand and shockingly found that my little finger can just rest naturally at that smaller lever of the shifter and I can even shift with that finger with minimal force, and there's even a groove for that finger to rest! What a surprise. Before I run 42 bars and my shoulder measures at around 39.5. Thank you for putting the effort! Your testings are brilliant, the best now on YT. Keep doing it!
Best comment. Same with mtb'ing if going with from a narrower to wider handlebar. Farther the hands are apart, the shorter the stem you need for equivalent reach. I assume this was part of the reason for little difference between the two bar widths. Good catch.
Just watching Tour Down Under last week and some super aero breakaway guys stayed away for a reduced bunch sprint and the guys trying to sprint with those narrow bars looked wonky and laborious; no way they're generating as much power.
How about cross-chaining vs efficient chain-line? I don't know how you'd test this but it's something I hear about occasionally and I don't know how big the effect is
I love how succinct this video is. Thank you for not dragging these out to 20min, it is great to watch
This a million times, straight to the point.
Liked and subscribed
Please do a video on shorter cranks. Love your channel it has helped motivate to race again!
Yes please. Interested in that too myself
I went to 165mm from 172.5 and felt less strain in my hips. But there are other performance benefits to shorter cranks as well
@@robertchandler587 that’s interesting. I went from 172.5 to 165 and saw my average power meter numbers go up slightly. I attribute that to ease of being able to generate power on a climb with a greater hip angle. My test is far from scientific though. The 165s just also feel better, can spin easier.
@@robertchandler587 oh sorry. I read your reply incorrectly. Yeah, shorter cranks are all the rage. I wonder how short is too short. If 165s are this good, maybe I should try 160s.
I want to try 165’s but trying to find them seems to be tough for road and MTB. Nobody seems to have them in stock to fit my 12 year old Madone or non-Boost gravel bike.
I like narrower bars more because the arm position feels much more natural. I usually ride with 38cm nowadays, because with 42cm in the aero tuck position it feels like I twist my shoulders a bit outwards, if you know what I mean. And carbon handlebars are marginally stiffer if they are narrower. This can be a downside or benefit, depending on the terrain you are riding.
Have you measured your shoulders? The distance between your acromions (plus 2cm) is probably around 38cm if it feels more natural on that width of bar.
Same here. I have narrow shoulders and 38 is my go-to. Though 36-38 without flare is horrible for sprinting. There's no leverage and the whole thing is super twitchy.
I wouldn't frame it as narrower bars feel more natural. You simply didn't have the correct bar width to match your shoulder width. It's not any different than having your saddle too high-it's all about getting the right fit.
@@ConsciousBreaks makes me think of saddle height and how a few mm can make a world of difference not only in comfort but also in performance.
@@frozenbean well I'm 6"ft and I have measured my shoulder width to be 40,5cm, so I initially rode with 40cm bars, but then I tried 38cm and even 36cm and I like how this somehow naturally lets you fall into a TT Position. Having your Arms in front of your body instead of on your side, just feels more comfortable to me. But I also love the very narrow TT-Position on a TT-Bike maybe that is why.
as usual, great video Jeff. I think one adjustment to the procedure would be to add 1cm to the stem on the narrower bars. With a constant elbow angle the narrower bars decrease your effective reach pushing your torso slightly up and this may be negating any potential savings.
This is very important
Exactly, so narrower but also taller, equalizing the aerodynamic picture.
I switched from 42 to a 39cm handle bar and felt not too near, but too high. Set my stem 1cm lower to compensate and it still feels more comfortable.
I've run those 37/42 Enve bars for 3 years now. I get it about minimal benefit from going narrower, but there is also a comfort benefit to the flare, and keeping a wider grip in the drops makes it the best all around bar for me. I'll never go back to a straight bar.
gay bar's are so much more fun
yeah straight bars suck@@ds6914
@@ds6914 dude, what?
I recently had a Whisky Components carbon bar come to me on a used bike. A 6° flare, you couldn't tell unless you knew it had a flare, that it was flared. Had to really look at it. But this is what made me switch to having all my levers turned in. And ive even thought about buying more of those Whisky bars with that same flare. I could feel the difference! Soon, I should another one of my bikes, and had the levers turned in.... later that week, he told me he loved what I did with the bars, and raved to me about how comfortable it was! This was back in 2022, right about when we saw this becoming normal in the pro peloton, but way before anyone else was really mentioning it. Ride on my friend! Happy riding!
@@tygrewesterfield841 more fun than straight bars
I did not realize how controversial the shorter format is. Kudos to you. Straight to the point real world. Your last couple videos have converted me from an occasional watcher to an avid follower.
Thanks for taking the time and sharing that with us
Cool experiment. I love the clarity of how there IS a difference, but what is it really and does it really matter. It's worth noting that some people believe that the 'conventional' (of the last 20-30 yrs) width bars are ergonomically suboptimal for the average rider too. That we should be running slightly narrower than the normal rules of thumb for fit reasons. Not sure how you'd really test that practically but...
37cm would be too narrow for my taste, but I feel way more comortable since I switched from 42 to 40. Thanks to Francis Cade for his videos with the bike fitter.
Great video Jeff, one note on how the narrower bar allows you to get into a more aero position, the flare of the bar puts the top off the hoods closer to 33-35cm. By grabbing near the end of the hoods in the “aero hoods position” the flare allows you to roll your arms and shoulders in quite a bit tighter. I’d be interested what kind of gains would result from that sort of position
i’d be interested at looking at the effects on your wrists, too. I know mine only like a littttle bit of bend in compared to some of these guys.
I would love to see a video about just using an aero weel in the front. The rationale for this is that the air turbulence at the rear is significant enough to make the weight savings from a lighter rear wheel more beneficial than the aerodynamic advantages. Thanks for the amazing content.
I was running 40cm bars on my first couple of bikes. I always wanted the bars to be a little bit more narrow while on rides. When I picked up my new bike I decided to use 38cm bars and it’s a great fit for me. I am a smaller rider. I am 5’7” tall and the narrower bars fit me better. For racing or unless you are a smaller rider I think narrower bars is a better “fit”. Otherwise there is not purpose in feeling uncomfortable just to look cooler or for the marginal gains.
The only reason that I would swap out my 42cm bars for narrower ones would be for comfort as my shoulder width measures around 40cm.
My guess based on my own experience is you would find narrower to be a lot more comfortable. I'm really glad a bike fitter here suggested it.
Shoulder width has a factor and the fit with narrower bars like 36 - 38cm fits much better to having narrow shoulders as do I. Also completely agree with the position change, you can get into a narrower TT type of position with your forearms on the tops of the bars while holding onto the hoods ( I call it Tadej style).
completely agree
I always found 42 too wide, I didn't try more narrow but I like 39 way more. Also, the biggest positive surprise when I started experimenting with my steer and break handles was that I find handlebars pointing inward so much more comfortable to ride for my wrists. Also that way to rest your wrist on the steer while in aero position is nice.
My Trek 600 purchased in 1985 came with 38 cm bars on a 59 is cm frame-what’s old is new again it would seem.😅
Yeah back then the bikes had super narrow bars with extra long stems😂
Maybe the new formula for fit is handlebar width should be twice crank arm length, e.g. if running 170mm crank arms, handlebars should be 34 cm, if 160mm cranks, 32 cm handlebars. Seems correct, at least for track bikes, crit bikes should be similar...@@anthonyharris483
Thanks for posting that and closing out the point in a few concise mins !!! Keep em coming 👊🏾🙌🏾
Came for the B-roll … stayed for the results ❤
I’m 6’6” and unapologetically use 36cm bars with a 140mm stem. In terms of aero watts the drag is 1w per cm. So very marginal. The biggest advantage is that you can be in any hand position and still have body between other riders. So there is less to protect when in close contact with other riders. Your handlebars are totally protected by your arms regardless of hand positioning on the bars. I can’t really comment on sprinting because I have never been good at it but in my case I have tried 46cm bars before and it didn’t make any difference. If anything having the narrow bars feels like driving a sports car vs the wider feels like driving a U-Haul
What I missed in this video is your shoulder width (or I am deaf/blind). I remember you saying you were relatively broad shouldered? What about 42 vs 37 cm handlebars on someone with
I have 37cm shoulders and have been running 32.5cm AeroCoach Ornix bars on one bike and 35cm Enve SES Aero bars on another bike. I've gotten used to the AeroCoach bars and the Enves feel like a big yellow schoolbus steering wheel. They key for aero gains is to change your fit accordingly. Per 2cm lost in width, most people should add 1cm in stem length. Tuck your elbows in and make sure the fit doesn't result in the knees+elbow interference at TDC.
Narrow bars for me feel much more natural and comfortable and that’s why I always add them. Anything else is bonus. Same with flat top/aero bars being more comfortable to rest my hands while on long climbs. Plus better cable management and look.
Top rate content. I really appreciate the unbiased unvarnished approach!
the largest benefit to different bar widths is overall fit/comfort, narrower shoulders=narrower bars, 42 cm are often too wide for the average cyclist...small bonus is the marginal aero advantage
Surprised by the results, but love that this vid was short and sweet. Jeff, I'm reasonably local to you, ride a 54cm Soloist with the same Enve bars, have Assioma power pedals, and love geeking out over A/B comparisons like the ones you've been recently doing (have done a few myself actually). Hmu if you'd like to collaborate and have an additional data point for any future vids.
knock knock
@@swunson who dat
Nice video, short and straight to the point, also the videography is on point!
I currently use 40cm drop which is not that narrow and wide, it's perfect where i can sprint easily on the drop and be narrow at the tops if I needed to be aero
i really enjoy these videos lately. keep up the good work.
I know there was some elevation to go through but 4 seconds saved at 22mph ( 35,2 km/h) is not small IMO. Increase the speed and distance a little bit and this difference would be bigger. Additionally, both handlebars have aero profiles, so if someone is considering switching from non-aero bar to narrower aero bar, then again they can expect a bit more gains.
Imagine being in a breakaway and getting 4 seconds just because of a narrower handlebar. Poor all these riders who were caught by the peloton on the last meters! As long as it does not make you uncomfortable and less aero, I think a narrower handlebar is the best choice for an upgrade.
We need a comparison test of that allez sprint @4:58 vs your team race bike. Same wheels and everything else
After4 years of in wind tunnel testing, I feel that the flared drops did effect your numbers. Retest with non flared 37mm bars. There should be less turbulence. less watts.
This helped me so much - I was considering narrower bars, but wasn't sure of the quantified benefit.
Great video 👏👍. Thats exactly what I was asking myself. Keep up the good content like this video and the video with the tyre width.
Best vid so far - I appreciate you!
I'm glad you shared these results. I was actually thinking about purchasing narrower bars for my road bike. Based on your findings, I just need to focus more on my body position instead.
Great info and test. Thank you for making it.
Good to know, thx. I had my doubts when choosing new bar, but i choose the wider one, due to shoulder width and comfort for my body/built. I focus on my own body position, which has way more possible gains.. thx 🙏
Great Videos! It would be great if you could test the penalty of bottles on the downtube. It would be especially interesting to know if there is a difference between an aero frame and a normal frame (assuming that the penalty should be bigger for an aero frame). And if you have one bottle already, does a second make any significant difference? There are quite some wind-tunnel tests, but as always they do not represent real life, and especially not normal roadbike setups. Thx!
Interesting and straight to the point. Appreciate that.
Could you test whether the narrower bars will impact your power for shorter periods (10s, 30s, 60s)? I imagine that the drops will feel the same if they indead have the same leverage when getting out of the saddle, but it might be interesting to test on a trainer or on a flat sprint section.
your bikefit also changes when getting a narrower bar, so the reason why the narrow effect didnt work might be beacause you need a little longer stem to have the same upper body height from the ground - good video, straight to the point, no bs
I'm 6'4" and new bikes in my size usually come with 46cm bars. I recently tried 42cm bars and canted the controls inward just slightly. Wow, the comfort difference was incredible.
Would be interesting to see comparison between different crank lengths.
How do you see 300W delivered to the crank be different from 300W delivered to the crank? The only difference there might be the feel or maybe marginal increase in cornering pedaling clearence, which is not really quantifiable
@@АнтонАлексеенко_044 more people are realizing that shorter cranks allows them to more comfortably pedal at a higher cadence, which is more efficient and transfers the effort from your legs to your heart. crank length on most bikes are a little too big imo. not sure how NorCal cycling would test this tho..
I've always ran 172.5 cranks for about thirty years, started doing more aero rides as I can get pretty low and still make power over a longer period of time, tried 165mm cranks and then finally went to 152mm cranks. I can go for quite a while in an aero position on the 152's. There are trade offs for sure but I wouldn't go back, but then again I'm fifty years old so anything that's easier on the hips I like lol
@@SouthernRotors How tall are you? 152mm sounds a bit extreme for me
pedal clearance and cornering ability is what makes shorter cranks the better option, at least for me.
I'm probably about the same height as you, maybe a bit broader in shoulders. Definitely going a little bit narrower than used to be customary is a lot more comfortable for me. It keeps my wrists in a more natural position. I've never gone all the way to 37, so I don'tknow how it would feel. But 40 is good for me with drops that don't flair much. If I still raced crits (and younger!) I might go more narrow for reasons you mentioned.
Jeff testing the real shit out there!!
And on the bike I ride, can’t hate that.
I wonder if there is a limit on savings going narrower once it gets narrower than your shoulders bc you can’t bring them in much more.
Like if you want 45 to 40 would that be bigger savings - I suspect it might, would be cool, but difficult to test
I don't think there is, based on Jan-Willem van Schip. He's a Dutch track cyclist (2x world champion).
Even at his size (6'4", 185), he rides with 30 cm bars even in road races and would go lower but for UCI rules.
He's a known aero nut, he must've tested it out and found the speed difference outweights the uncomfortability.
He's a professional though. I don't think your average amateur club rider really needs to ride on such monstrosities...
Someone probably already wrote it/been done by others, but I would like to see diference in inner tubes done by you. Butyl - Latex - TPU - Tubeless.
I came from butyl to latex and thought it was incredible performance boost in rolling resistance but it could also be placebo.
Great stuff Jeff. We're loving this controlled comparison series. Test idea - Compliant vs. stiff bike? Get two cervelos (endurance vs. race) and get the geometry the same, same wheelset, hidden cables, equalize their weight. Then test it using your protocol plus one with intervals/surges (ie., crits). i've got two bikes and the stiff one feels faster (it also beats me up), but is it really faster??
I mean, there’s so many variables at play with this…..
Appreciate the video as it helped me squelch that inner money waster that wanted to replace the expensive carbon aero bars that my bike came with for a slightly narrower version.
Narrow bars don't work for me. I have broad shoulders and when I dropped down to 40cm bars, my back muscles would eventually lock up and restrict my breathing, which is slow. I use 44cm bars. This happened to me on both road and track bikes. Does this only happen to me?
I got 47 cm wide shoulders, ride 44 cm bars and am happy so far. On narrower bars I have to collapse my shoulders which doesn’t feel and can’t be good.
I have both 38 and 40cm on two different bikes. The 38 feels like I am flexing my core muscles more especially on climbs, this in turns causes more fatique. I am by no means have very wide shoulders but prefer sticking with 40cm. The flare tho.. makes me "feel" faster on the break. Thanks for clarifying this~
The test was only run with one rider (with a larger frame body). I think a smaller/narrower rider would benefit more from the narrower bars. The wide bars would put the arms well beyond the outer perimeter of the torso for a narrower rider. It would be interesting to see it tested that way.
I ran a 42cm before and now a 38cm, it helps me to be more relaxed in the shoulders and the grip on the hoods now fits like a glove, also my somewhat turned in hoods play a role in that hood feeling too.
I really like these videos. What I tend to think of as an average cyclist is energy saved over a 4 to 6 hour ride in different conditions (like head winds). On longer rides the small savings really add up, maybe not in speed but effort.
I run zipp 36cm non flared bars, they are faster by a good bit than the old days when I used 44cm bars.
i love your real world experiment without the marketing of big brand you tube channels
the orange box was not aligned with the time axis in the graph, and it hurt my brain 🤣
The 14:45 label on the time axis is a mistake. It should say 14:36 - Each line is about 11 seconds. The orange box is in the right place though
i’m glad someone else caught this
I find this interesting, i just got a 1970s, Schwinn Chicago road bike, and my handle bars are 35cm, with slightly turned in, brake levers, which seems to be what the "new" riding style is trying to be.
I am of the opinion that you shouldn't change out to narrower bars if you are chasing speed. Handle bar length should be aligned with your shoulders and proportional to your build. If you choose something wider or narrow than what your body's structure determines, you will ultimately feel very uncomfortable, which could lead to shoulder stress and strain especially over the course of long rides. Just get a bike fit; when I did, the first thing changed out were my handlebars. Once I got used to the new ones, which only took a couple of rides, I felt at one with my bike. 😃👍
Very interesting! Im curious how this would apply in the gravel scene where wider handle bars are often associated with faster cornering!
I use 46 cm for more lateral stability, comfort is useless if the Gravel terrain makes you fall
Thanks for this comparison and the closeness of the overall times is surprising. So how 'bout round 42s v flat-top 38s for a future test.
Does changing handlebar width affects breathing?
No
It would be cool to see a comparison of traditionally lubed vs waxed chains. I know a lot of guys who have switched to wax for performance reasons and I’m curious how much of a difference it really makes.
Thats a great idea! Please test it
For me, I switched to wax not for the efficiency claims but because it makes your drivetrain last longer. According to Zero Friction Cycling's cost to run calculator, I'll save about $70 over 10,000km by switching from the best oil-based lube to a middle of the road wax. Also I run a 3x8 speed drivetrain so parts are pretty cheap. You'll probably save more if you're running modern 11 or 12-speed stuff
@@fleurdelispens my chains last over 15,000km running pure parrafin wax. Super cheap aud$25 for 5kg (used only 1/3 of this in 7 years across 7 bikes). Only use a rag and boiling water to degrease. Saves so much time, cost, and effort. The only pain is degreasing the chain initially (I follow the Friction Facts recommendation of Mineral Turpentine to degrease, and Methlyated Spirits to strip the chain of any remaining turps). The improved chain efficiency is just a bonus. I can ride 300-400km between waxings (depending on dust and water exposure).
Edit: I should note I only run 10, 9 and 8 speed chains to 0.75 wear mark on Park Tool chain checker.
@@richardggeorge I bought Silca's super secret wax and their degreaser for the convenience. That bag of wax means I don't even need a crock-pot; just drop the bag in a pot of boiling water. The degreaser also makes chain prep a super simple one-step process.
@@fleurdelispens that sounds very handy! That Silca wax is really expensive here in Australia (20 times more expensive than my paraffin wax and my dedicated slow cooker was only $15 from Kmart). I am tight a$$ though.
I am testing a 38 handlebar after 42. Man after you try a 38, you will feel like a flag with 42 handlebar. I am a small guy, so the 38 might be more comfortable on rides over 200 km. Two drawbacks I have noticed. #1 The bike will be less stable on gravel/unpaved roads. #2 You can barely mount anything. One Garmin mount, one bell and there is no more place left. If you want to carry bikepacking stuff on the handlebar, use 44 at least.
I went from the Zipp aerobar (your old one) 40cm to Zipp 38cm. Feels faster, more compact. Now I see it’s only faster in my mind😀
if your head is that wide, I guess you're a sniper's dream 😂
As someone who has been running 38s for years, for the “areo gains” it’s great to be put in my place. Narrower is more comfortable for me. Comfortable is smooth and smooth is fast.
Great video! Thanks Jeff. This season is have decided to angle my hoods in. I run stock bars on my BMC RoadMachine, but have found that the feel on the angled hoods is way more comfortable for me. Screw the UCI :)
Can you test the bottle in rear pocket hack found by Dylan Johnson in the windtunnel but then in real life. Preferably with a skin suit. 🚀
ooh this would be good, test it in the center back pocket of the jersey...THEN test it with the bottle tucked into the jersey like the pros do with their vests or motogp racers aero attachment near the neck..great idea
Love the comparison videos! What I’d like to see compared are a modern round tube titanium or steel frame versus a recent aero bike. Both with racing geometry, fully integrated aero cockpit, same components and wheels. Obviously vintage metal bikes are slower, but what if everything except for the frame is the same?
I have tested this with Colnago C40 vs Dogma F10.
The big lie-by-ommission with round tubing when they say it is less aero (creates drag behind the tail edge of the tubing) is they never make a comparison between the much broader carbon tubes versus much narrower metal tubes. The GCN "bro science" textbook analysis which they always love to make when they show the little picture of the different tubing shapes and the drag profile it makes basically assumes an equal frontal area, which in real life they are not.
I do almost exclusively time trialing (10 mile specialty) and thousands of hours of my data on the same courses daily for over a decade has shown almost no statistical advantage between my preferred trainer (a 1992 Merlin titanium with shallow rims and round 32 spokes) versus several of my brand new carbon aero bikes (all of which have almost identical geometry; all my aero bikes having 60mm carbon rims with low spoke count bladed spokes and integrated cables on all aero bikes. Also, most of my aero bikes have a similar weight to my old titanium, which is another cruel joke the bike industry has played on us all).
The time differences between my aero bikes versus my Merlin titanium is within margin of error. You simply could not ever discern any difference using any scientific method when doing real-world testing on the course. It will always be within margin of error of under (+/-) 6 seconds or so over the 10 mile TT's I do. In fact, most of my PR's were made with my Merlin bike. Sadly, the only thing my aero bike consistently gets me that I can say is absolute, is a more nerve racking experience when there are side winds.
@alexjohnson6462 interesting. I find my Dogma F10 woth aero wheels on on crosswinds is more stable than my C40 as a package.
However, I recently did another test just this past weekend for one last time as all previous tests were so close. The F10 vs C40 have identical fit coordinates, aero shaped 36cm bars, and same 60mm wheels swapped between tests and utilizing same Assioma dual sided PM. My results were on back to back and switching between bikes to limit environmental change. And I did first test with 350 watts on uphill portion from set point to point with 250 watts on down hill, average speed was 26 on C40 and 26.1 on F10.
And 2nd test was consistent 300 watts for 10 mins whilst maintaining aero hoods position. F10 was 26.2 mph, and C40 was 25.8mph.
@@alexjohnson6462 According to “bro science” and marketing, a metal frame with round tubes should basically make you go backwards.😁 But they often compare vintage material to modern bikes. Metal frame builders have finally caught up and are offering very clean looking, fully integrated aero cockpits, which has renewed my interest. A direct comparison should be interesting. I suspect that the majority of aerodynamic gains are made at the front and that everything behind the bottles and knees is largely insignificant because of turbulence, at least in the real world. Your testing seems to suggest the same.
@@tommyfreckmann6857 While the C40 is neither metal nor has it round tubes, it is a stunning bike and definitely an interesting one to compare with a more modern bike. So from your test it looks like on the Colnago you’re loosing just under 1 second per kilometer on a flat stretch at 42kph. That’s actually more than I had expected. My hunch was that modern aero bikes, at least in real world turbulent conditions, almost exclusively benefit from their clean front ends, i.e. aero cockpit, wheel and fork.
Hang on though, if you narrow the bars you have to either move the saddle back or use a longer stem. If not you'll be sitting more upright. Or am I missing something??
I was also expecting a bigger difference. I want to try 38cm from my 410cm to see how comfortable it is as my hands always seem to settle inwards on my current setup.
Good comparison and good size video, thank you. But any comparison brings more questions.
Comparing for same power is good (yes, more measurements would increase statistical significance as mentioned before) but what about max power or sustaining more power for longer?
Something else that could play a role is that size comparisons can not be absolute but relative to your shoulders/body/way you produce power. If your ideal would be 40 both 42 and 37 could be off by a similar amount.
I am 182 cm tall, 82 kg, and I got myself 38 cm bars on all my drop bar bikes, even my gravel bike. Why? Because when I close my eyes and reach out with my arms in front, at a comfortable position my hands end up at approx 34-36 cm apart.
I would rather have the comfort of the wider 42'' bar mainly because I am broad shouldered.Let's face it gaining 4s over a course of 15 minutes ain't worth all the hype.Thank you for confirming this.
do it again, but stay tucked down in a super aero position. How long can you hold that position for each bar (for the full 14 minute?). What is your heart rate and power for both runs... this will show if you are working harder (for the same wattage) to hold that aero position on the wider bars (compared to the narrow bars).
I made a 31 cm bars top to bottom without flare IMO no flare it’s the best for cornering and sprinting
I use a 46cm bar due to wide shoulders, narrow bars are just plain uncomfortable and changing normal bars to flared bars is plain uncomfortable. I also dumped my flared bars and am much happier, I don't race road bikes though.
Wy do you keep spoilering the results with just slightly blurred graphs?
Thanks for this! Was very curious.
Glad it was helpful!
Test the tire widths running tubeless.
The problem with this test was that the stem length wasn't factored in. This is probably why the difference was small. Effectively the reach was shortened when the bar width was made narrower. It would be like changing crank length without adjusting your saddle or going for a wider tire and using the same tire pressure.
Might have missed this in the video but how many runs did you do with each setup? For this test protocol to be anywhere near statistically valid, you would need several data points. I mean like several dozen runs, done back to back, in both directions (cw and ccw).
A marginal gain showing up in five miles is significant when you're talking races that are decided by seconds. And for those who race endurance or gravel such a gain can equates to 2.5 minutes over the course of my A race. All things being equal - you have the money - why not change?
Additionally, as a smaller rider, I'm often forced to bin the bits like cranks, saddles and bars with which a bike ships. Even one otherwise sized for me.
So I swapped out the 44s my bike came with immediately for those exact bars (+ aero extensions + 165 cranks and a 14mm saddle.)
I recently switched from the 44cm bars my bike came with to 38s. The new bar is labeled 40, but the manufacturer measures from the outside edge instead of the center.
I made the switch only because the narrower bar fits my shoulder width better. Do I expect it'll be faster in any of my riding? Maybe, but not so much I'll be able to measure it.
Everything old is new again... In the '80s (and before), women ran 38s, guys ran 40s on the road and 38s on the track. The real question was which Cinelli profile you liked. Modolo caused a stir when they released the 'ergo' bar in the mid-late '80s with a flattened bend for you to grab in the drops. The widths got wider in the 90s IIRC. With all the options available, it really should come down to personal preference. There's not enough marginal gain to justify riding bars that don't fit your body/style just for the sake of a second/mile. I mostly ride a gravel bike these days, and I prefer the Salsa Woodchipper in a 44cm width. Suboptimal for road riding, but nice control for chunky descents.
As a rider of larger stature, could you comfortably ride 37cm bars during longer rides? Would the narrow bars impact your control of the bike during descents or sprints if they did not have an aggressive flare from the drops to the ends?
as someone currently deliberating on bar width, could you share any details on the quantitative and qualitative differences you feel while sprinting? as a sprinter myself, definitely don’t want to lose leverage and therefore power, but wondering where that tipping point is… would greatly value your input, Jeff!
37 feels weird when i'm out of the saddle climbing, but when i'm sprinting i'm in the drops and these flair to 42 so it feels good
4 seconds sounds minimal, but 4 seconds at 22.1 mph = 130 feet. So at the finish, the gap between the narrow bars and the wide bars was ~1.5 basketball courts!
Very useful verification.
I see your riding form of front view ,your elbow little bit wider I think.(at 370mm handlebar)
When narrow setup ,elbow position like TT style.(I thought)
I'm still interested in narrower bars purely because I have all the signs of discomfort related to bars being too wide. I tend to roll my hands and shoulders inward a lot, and can't help but feel I'd just be more comfortable on a narrower front end. Just haven't made the investment yet!
You should've tried Worx 24/33 track bars and given the narrow bar a legit chance to excel beyond the powermeter error bar.
Isn’t the handling getting more and more instable and finicky the narrower the bars get?
If your shoulders aren't flexible and anthropometrically they are quite wide you won't benefit from narrower bars..
It's like a TT position. If you can't hold it physically there is no point of lowering front end and narrowing arm rests etc.
First comfort, right fit, then speed))
on the cheaper aero Canyon frames, you can't get a narrower handlebar. It depends on your stem length. We don't need flared handlebars though either. I don't want to get hooked like a f'ing fish in the sprint.
Yes, thats soo stupid
Why not test at actual race speeds? I'd assume its a much higher delta between 22mph and 28-30mph like you'd see in a p12 crit. I get that it's hard to keep the speed that high on your own but why not bring a motorpacer and see what the data says. I bet it'll show a bigger difference between the 2 widths at higher avg speeds. Sick video as always!
like you mentioned it's hard to ride 28-30 solo for 15+ minutes multiple times 😅. also hard to find a motorpace to help production. Not to mention that adds another variable... how close was i to the moto? was it the same between runs? did he keep a constant speed, what about uphill vs downhill? this is all too complicated to test, but i appreciate the suggestion!
@@NorCalCyclingit would be like a derny. You maintain the steady power output and derny paces in front of you while you tell him or her faster or slower. Sure there would be some variances, but I bet you could keep it really steady for 15 mins, long enough to get quality data. Love the technical stuff. Nice change of pace from race reviews. keep em coming!
I'm revisiting this video after an extensively looking into this narrow handlebar aero thing. Few things I found are: 1. The lower/more aggressive you go, the smaller the difference. This could explain why the effects on you are not that significant. This is well illustrated in the Cycling Weekly video ( ruclips.net/video/sLEm2KziCVc/видео.html&ab_channel=CyclingWeekly ). At (9:33) it shows that the biggest gain comes at a relaxed hood position which is quite upright (45 degree torso angle, with a whopping 34.4 watts saving), but when you get into that aero hoods position it shrinks to just 10 Watts. Because your position is so good so I guess that partly explains why the result. 2. There's a starting point to see significant gains, and the point of diminished return seems very far away (well below 30cm). That means if you go from 46 to 44 probably you won't see much difference because in either case you just can't hide your arm in front of your body. They are the same 2 cylinders sticking out in the air. But if you go from 42 to 38, assume your shoulder width is 40, then that could be a significant gain. Then again, after that point the narrower you go, the more similar you are with a TT position. And that diminished point of return seems at well below 30cm. So I think maybe you can try some much more aggressive bars like those Worx ones, or some 32cm cheap Fouriers ones, to see if you can get a more significant benefit? I think if that's a little bit significant than this then it's a worth in a breakaway situation or sprint.
In a practical point of view, I think you will see the narrower bar taking over especially in the amateurs in the next few years. Because they are the most benefited -- they ride that 45 degree relaxed position the most. Good racers like you can just get into that aero position -- no reason to ride at 45 kph in upright position, and the narrower effect would be much smaller. While it's those who can't get into that same aero position now get significantly reduced drag from the narrow bars without becoming more flexible. This along will push the change because finally the bikes are sold to amateurs, instead of something like BB stiffness that nobody can actually feel, this one is much so real. This seems to be the most low hanging fruit right now.
As a result of my "pursuit" I finally jumped on the train and got the PRO Aero Pursuit alloy handlebar which is 36 c-c at hoods and 40 c-c at drops with flat aero top and a reasonable price. In no way I'll do some controlled science but during my test run it seems in my usual fast sections I now hit 44.x kph consistently while before it's 42.x, never seen anything 44 so that really pops up when I see the data after ride. I don't think handling is something that's noticeable if not even more stable, but as a bonus point it turns out that it's the first time that I get the hoods position right - Now I can wrap the hoods with my hand and shockingly found that my little finger can just rest naturally at that smaller lever of the shifter and I can even shift with that finger with minimal force, and there's even a groove for that finger to rest! What a surprise. Before I run 42 bars and my shoulder measures at around 39.5.
Thank you for putting the effort! Your testings are brilliant, the best now on YT. Keep doing it!
I think you need to increase the stem length by 1 cm to get the same position.
Best comment. Same with mtb'ing if going with from a narrower to wider handlebar. Farther the hands are apart, the shorter the stem you need for equivalent reach. I assume this was part of the reason for little difference between the two bar widths. Good catch.
*Only if his shoulders width is 42cm or more. Otherwise less reach would be needed.
is 400mm and 420mn has a bbig different? there's no 400mm available for my bike. only 420mm.
I'd like to see the same 2 bars but on a fairly decent climb and then a descent afterwards.
If you're a sprinter where you're torquing on the bars, I would think that shoulder width minimally would be optimal.
Just watching Tour Down Under last week and some super aero breakaway guys stayed away for a reduced bunch sprint and the guys trying to sprint with those narrow bars looked wonky and laborious; no way they're generating as much power.
@@charliedillon1400 As a sprinter, I couldn't agree more! it's called leverage 🤣
@@richardggeorge Cavendish mentioned this in an interview on the subject. Go too narrow and you lose wattage.
U guys in USA and GCN in UK favours larger tyres as road are quite rough. I bet 28 would be better in Australia and other countries with better road.
How about cross-chaining vs efficient chain-line? I don't know how you'd test this but it's something I hear about occasionally and I don't know how big the effect is