Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: awai04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    992

    Goal of the 30.8 mm bar size

    So what really is the reason behind the new standard --strength? Less stress on carbon bars? Marketing?

    Another question: will the larger size ultimately lead to lighter bar/stem combos at a given strength? I'm not really all that dissatisfied with the current, smaller standard. Also, all else being equal, smaller = lighter.

  2. #2
    espresso lover
    Reputation: Frankie - B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    139
    IMHO it's just a marketing thing. Everybody has the cockpit of his bike sorted out and nobody buys something new anymore. So the marketing guys are now trying to tell us that the 30.8 / 1 1/8" stuff is the best there is!
    Try to mount your speedometer and your HR monitor on that weird shaped bar!
    No cool signature...

  3. #3
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    31.8mm, right?
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  4. #4
    espresso lover
    Reputation: Frankie - B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    139
    so correct! 31.8 thanks cloxx!
    No cool signature...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    563

    it stiffer for sure

    as i said before im riding a thomson stem x bontrager race lite bar in 25.4 diameter. i tested a ritchey wcs x fsa flat bar in 31.8 and the difference in stiffness was very noticiable. im a 85kg rider running a sid wc and i really dont need a flexy stem. the ritchey wcs in 130mm x 31.8 size comes in less than 120 grams with steel bolts. i dont think there are any 25.4 stem out there with that weigth that is at least as stiff. at least the syntace f99 that i tested last week wasnt. so thats the set up i will be riding/racing next year:

    ritchey wcs 31.8 stem
    bontrager xxx carbon flat bar (31.8)
    post moderne bar ends (light and cheap).

    i ask people who says its just "marketing hipe", have you guys ever tested the 31.8 setup on your bike? not on another persons bike, but on your bike?whats your conclusions? that will be a much valid point than just say its a "marketing hipe" without have tested before.
    hey
    ho
    lets go!

  6. #6
    jonny_mac
    Guest

    i ride

    a ritchey wcs carbon bar and stem(31.8). it is noticeably stiffer than my
    past 25.4 and i like it's better steering precision.

    100mm stem 111 g's
    bar was 136 g's

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    212

    Marketing hype

    It's marketing hype. Poor quality bars benefit most from the oversized standard since they become stiffer. Stiff bars at the smaller diameter gain less. Poor quality bars benefit, but if you already have a stiff, quality bar then it's just hype.

  8. #8
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Funny, at the LBS's storage cleaout, an Italian "oversiye bar came up. Narrow, flat, and a decade old at least. 31.8mm. They tried, but it didn't become a success. Now, same siye, same arguments, it does. Good thing about it, for me, is that road and MTB get standardized. I like -17 stems to get my bars down.
    I have a 25.8 WCS now on the Fisher, and the stiffness doesn't bother me. If I could have it much stiffer (read : find a 31.8 WIDE flatbar), that'd be cool.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  9. #9
    jonny_mac
    Guest

    hmmm

    then why dont you "design" a thin diameter aluminum frame
    and be the first to end the marketing hype on oversized aluminum.

  10. #10
    Bike-shop employee.
    Reputation: Nigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    88

    Definitely marketing.

    I posed this question to several reps last year. They all explained that it was simply a marketing ploy. Just like any industry, change in technology creates new products, that must be sold. Thus, all the companies make the switch to 31.8 mm bars and stems, and make the older standard obsolete. This has a clear effect on the consumer consciousness and those that dont have it, feel they must.

    Technological benefit? Im sure that the industry has put out 'tests' claiming how much stronger 31.8 is. Anyone that is brought in by this is a tool. How many people have snapped a handlebar at that point? I ve been riding and working in a bike shop for years, and the only kind of catastrophic damage to a handlebar is usually done by intense jumping/freeriding. Is it necessary for roadies and xc riders to have their bars strengthened? Absolutely not. But hey, its the industry that leads the way, and the consumers usually chose to follow....and in this case, in a few years you wont have an option...change or upgrade to 31.8 or continue riding your 80's era EdCo alluminum road handlebar untill it breaks in a heroic manner, like I plan on doing.

  11. #11
    all hail der Fuhrer Bush
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,635

    two reasons

    Quote Originally Posted by awai04
    So what really is the reason behind the new standard --strength? Less stress on carbon bars? Marketing?

    Another question: will the larger size ultimately lead to lighter bar/stem combos at a given strength? I'm not really all that dissatisfied with the current, smaller standard. Also, all else being equal, smaller = lighter.
    A tube's rigidity increases with the cube of its radius. That's the principle behind fat tube aluminum frames like Klein. A larger diameter tube is more rigid than a smaller diameter one of the same weight, as increasing tube diameter is a more weight-efficient way to add rigidity vs increasing the tube wall. So no, smaller does not necessarily equal lighter.

    That said, marketing is the other reason.
    Don't pay the $85 fee to ride land you own! Resist!

  12. #12
    jonny_mac
    Guest

    your 80's

    era bar may be as strong as a new 31.8 bar,and as stiff, but it will be heavier and will have very thick walls(thin walls would be flexy in a 25.4). glad some of you aren't engineers, as we would have no new technology
    since the original is the best. as light weight is pushed, to achieve the same strength
    and stiffness you must get a bigger diameter, plain and simple. so "toolbox" go ahead
    and believe that it is all marketing.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,900

    Marketing: why not 50.37?

    Quote Originally Posted by awai04
    So what really is the reason behind the new standard --strength? Less stress on carbon bars? Marketing?

    Another question: will the larger size ultimately lead to lighter bar/stem combos at a given strength? I'm not really all that dissatisfied with the current, smaller standard. Also, all else being equal, smaller = lighter.
    Complete marketing ploy, it is not even true that the bar would be "stronger" for the same weight since tube wall will need to be thinner ...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,082

    Definitely an advantage to standardization.

    Having road and mountain being the same seems like a definite advantage to me. We should end up with more bars and stems to choose from. They could have done the same with 25.4 or 26.0 though. I don't have a problem with bar stiffness with 25.4. Oversize will make mounting things to bars a real headache until everyone adapts.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,082

    I think that part is obvious to most, but...

    why 31.8 mm? What is the magic diameter? Personally I think a stiffer bar solves another problem that didn't really exist in the first place. In fact, it could be argued that some flex is nice to absorb shock. Some flex could also make for a safer bar. I do like the idea of having the size standardized between road and mountain though.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,900

    Marketing: why not 50.37?

    Quote Originally Posted by awai04
    So what really is the reason behind the new standard --strength? Less stress on carbon bars? Marketing?

    Another question: will the larger size ultimately lead to lighter bar/stem combos at a given strength? I'm not really all that dissatisfied with the current, smaller standard. Also, all else being equal, smaller = lighter.
    Complete marketing ploy, it is not even true that the bar would be "stronger" for the same weight since tube wall will need to be thinner ...

  17. #17
    jonny_mac
    Guest

    a thinner

    walled bigger diameter tube WILL be stronger than a thicker walled(or even solid) tube
    of a thinner diameter. i think 31.8 came about to standardize road to mtb. davide where did
    25.4 come from, why did they choose to make it exactly an inch? complete marketing?
    i think davide should be a professor in marketing, and he shouldnt even own a bike, because it was marketed for him to buy it. davide why a 68mm or a 73mm bb shell,
    davide why are wheels round? marketing? davide why have handlebars in the first place?
    this guy is brilliant!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ultra Magnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,163
    That's not an apples to apples comparison....
    "I've come to believe that common sense is not that common" - Matt Timmerman

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ultra Magnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,163
    Quantify it! The saying it will be stiffer means absolutely nothing. How stiff is a 25.4? In what test? In what load condition? How much does it deflect? Everything deflects. Theoretically, when you take a step on a concrete driveway, it deflects under your wieght. How much? Hardly measureable. Use steel reiforced concrete and it'd probable deflect less. Does it matter, no! Before people start a war over something as trivial as the stem/handle bar clamp dia they use, put some numbers to it.
    "I've come to believe that common sense is not that common" - Matt Timmerman

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    563
    i dont need nunbers to feel this diference in stiffness. as i asked before and NO ONE answered. have any of you guys that are saying its marketing have already tested a 31.8 setup on your bike? if you dont, you cant answer if its worth or not.

    but if you guys feels that a syntace f-99 stem with a 600mm wide handlebar is stiff enough, thats great for you, just dont say its stiff enought for everybody like some people here says because its not. is it strong? yes. is it stiff? for me no. i just dont think so.my thomson is much stiffer than the syntace, i tested and i feel it. in my opinion, wider bars are not compatible with ultralight 25.4 stems. at least the syntace f99 in 135mm with my bontrager race lite 600mm wasnt stiff enought.
    Last edited by carlos; 12-21-2004 at 11:52 AM.
    hey
    ho
    lets go!

  21. #21
    jonny_mac
    Guest

    a few yrs ago

    rockshox provided data that their fork tested as stiff as zoke's xc fork on a test machine.
    the magazine verified this and commented about how much more the sid flexed out on the
    trail regardless of a certain test. 1 test cannot replicate real world, it just gives you a
    guideline in which to design to. certain people here believe a 50g stem will be as stiff
    as a 200g stem just because it is lighter. if you ride back to back a 31.8 to a 25.4
    you will certainly feel the diff, will it make you faster? doubt it. people win world cups
    on sids, and they aren't stiff. fox claiming their forks to be stiffer isnt just marketing.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    787

    save some weight

    Since this is the save some weight forum, it is important to point out that so far 31.8 mm bars are heavier than their 25.4 mm competition. So are most of the 31.8 mm stems when compared to the same model at 25.4 mm. Nobody went to large diameter al frame tubes and built heavier frames! So far manufacturers are not delivering on the promise of lighter weight and stiffer/stronger bar/stem combos. It should be possible, but it is not here yet.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    787

    Really?

    Actually, Vitus used to make road al frames that featured tubing diameters the same as steel, and yes they were very flexy. I am well aware of the material and engineering properties associated with this discussion. My point was that large diameter tubing allows the wall thickness to be reduced to achieve the same strength and stiffness in a given material. Because of this, I would like to see oversize bars/stem to achieve lighter weights.
    I do not believe that the Ritchey WCS stems are that light. The 25.4 versions weigh 140 grams in reality, not the claimed weight though. The problem with trying to get reduced weight in a bar with a larger diameter is that the wall thickness in the center of the bar cannot be reliably reduced to take advantage of the increase in stiffness associated with the larger diameter. The wall thickness cannot be reduced because the stem clamp would crush the bar, therefore the 31.8 mm bars cannot be made to a lighter weight than the 25.4 mm bars. BTW, I ride an Easton monkeylite SL that weighs 128 gms actual at a 24" width with 1/2" of rise, there is no 31.8 mm bar that comes close to these dimensions at that weight. Ritchey wcs carbon bar claimed weights: flat=134 gms, rizer=167 gms and those are the claimed weights. Ritchey has been optimistic about weights in the past. Ritchey 31.8 mm stem claimed at 125 gms, actual is more like 140.
    I just wanted to point out that the oversize trend is one that is not saving weight, if increased bar stiffness is desired, then oversize is the way to go, but there is a weight penalty at this time. I also like the idea of all bikes standardizing in the future (road and mountain) and 31.8 seems to be leading us in this direction.

  24. #24
    The Riddler
    Reputation: Kaparzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by barrows
    Actually, Vitus used to make road al frames that featured tubing diameters the same as steel, and yes they were very flexy. I am well aware of the material and engineering properties associated with this discussion. My point was that large diameter tubing allows the wall thickness to be reduced to achieve the same strength and stiffness in a given material. Because of this, I would like to see oversize bars/stem to achieve lighter weights.
    I do not believe that the Ritchey WCS stems are that light. The 25.4 versions weigh 140 grams in reality, not the claimed weight though. The problem with trying to get reduced weight in a bar with a larger diameter is that the wall thickness in the center of the bar cannot be reliably reduced to take advantage of the increase in stiffness associated with the larger diameter. The wall thickness cannot be reduced because the stem clamp would crush the bar, therefore the 31.8 mm bars cannot be made to a lighter weight than the 25.4 mm bars. BTW, I ride an Easton monkeylite SL that weighs 128 gms actual at a 24" width with 1/2" of rise, there is no 31.8 mm bar that comes close to these dimensions at that weight. Ritchey wcs carbon bar claimed weights: flat=134 gms, rizer=167 gms and those are the claimed weights. Ritchey has been optimistic about weights in the past. Ritchey 31.8 mm stem claimed at 125 gms, actual is more like 140.
    I just wanted to point out that the oversize trend is one that is not saving weight, if increased bar stiffness is desired, then oversize is the way to go, but there is a weight penalty at this time. I also like the idea of all bikes standardizing in the future (road and mountain) and 31.8 seems to be leading us in this direction.
    if you check weight weenies, the 2004 WCS O/S stem is pretty much on the money for weight. A 110 weighs about 113g.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    787

    You are right

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaparzo
    if you check weight weenies, the 2004 WCS O/S stem is pretty much on the money for weight. A 110 weighs about 113g.
    Just was at weight weenies and you are right. That is impressive that they have cut the weight from their 25.4 mm stems, WCS 31.8 is going to end up just a couple of grams heavier than F99 25.4. But the WCS carbon rizer bar weighs in at 174 gms! Definately not light, a 46 gm weight penalty vs Easton Monkeylite. So who is going to make a 24" wide lowrise bar at 31.8 mm?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Welcome, here's your 29er FAQ thread!
    By ncj01 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 06-20-2012, 02:56 PM
  2. Light, strong 30.9 mm seatpost?
    By B R H in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-27-2004, 03:16 PM
  3. 30.8 mm seat tube, what size front der?????
    By rixter67 in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2004, 10:20 PM
  4. GT iDrive bar clamp size
    By jaypeakpow in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2004, 12:58 PM
  5. Bar Ends -or- No Bar Ends
    By htims_nivek in forum Passion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-22-2004, 10:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •