Re: [CR]What are our priorities? - Handlebar Weights

(Example: Books:Ron Kitching)

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]What are our priorities? - Handlebar Weights
To: Donald Gillies <gillies@cs.ubc.ca>, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <200803180746.m2I7kRPm019928@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>


Your message provides a little food for thought. Sounds like old handlebars are heavier than newer handlebars. Beyond that, I can't agree with your generalizations, which seem mostly to have been pulled from the air, and in the end I'm unclear on what your actual point is. If you are saying that old handlebars meet your needs and that you expect them to have an infinite effective lifespan with your use, that's great. I can't argue with that. Now, allow me to construct a few straw men... If you are saying any of the following, I do not agree:

1) There is no conceivable need for any bar lighter than those you list.

2) At 215 grams, modern alloy bars are pushing beyond reasonable limits in terms of longevity and safety.

3) A 332 gram Cinelli 66-42 is intrinsically safe through an unlimited service life in its intended use. You don't need to replace it after a crash, and you don't need to replace it on a regular interval.

4) Ancient GB and OEM Raleigh handlebars pose a smaller risk of catastrophic failure than a 0-2 year old Deda 215. Heck, than a 0-50 year old Deda 215, in typical CR guy years.

5) There are no reasonable handlebar choices in the modern marketplace

6) The design features of modern bars are nothing more than marketing gimmicks.

Do any of these sound true to you? They all sound quite wrong to me. Consider why:

1) There is no conceivable need for any bar lighter than those you list.

A 215g bar is 65% the weight of a 332g bar. It's a QUARTER POUND lighter. That's just the bar. Find reasonable ways to reduce the weight of other parts, and you end up with a bike that is a few pounds lighter, even with integrated shifting and aero wheels. For someone who races, even someone who likes spirited group rides, that's a pretty big deal. If you are at your target riding weight, or even 10 pounds over it, a savings or a few pounds of bike weight matters. Now, that doesn't rationalize all the people who are overweight and still choose to ride light bikes, but I'm talking about anyone from a fit recreational rider to an elite pro. To some degree or another, dropping a few pounds from the bike will make a difference. I won't sit here and say that light weight can't easily go past reasonable limits. Big, strong riders are not the same as little, quick riders, and the more you go into the lightweight arena, the more you need to consider the rider's size, riding style, etc. That said, 215g Dedas are solid modern stuff and can be and are used without much concern by all but the biggest brutes. In the case of those big brutes, unless they are inexperienced or simply not too smart, they will naturally gravitate to more solid models of components because the lighter stuff will be too flexible for their tastes.

2) At 215 grams, modern alloy bars are pushing beyond reasonable limits in terms of longevity and safety.

Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I just haven't seen a rash of failed modern alloy bars in the 215g weight range. Can anyone on CR give me an example of a catastrophic failure of a Deda or ITM bar in this weight range? These are very popular models, and I just can't recall one example of a failure. You may start to have a point when we get into exotic stuff like CF bars, but the 215g bars you are talking about aren't stupid light, they are the modern analog of a Cinelli 66, or the like. When Cinelli rolled out their alloy bars conservative riders stuck with the chrome steel version for a while, but what eventually happened? The alloy bars held up fine, and they were oh-so-much lighter that everyone began using them. Well, that alloy bar stayed the same for what, 30 years, until competition in the marketplace forced Cinelli to make some improvements, such as bulged (as opposed to sleeved) center sections, and better alloys (6000 and 7000 series heat treated). The newer bars were lighter. Some riders jumped on them right way, others waited to assess their reliability, but at some point a lighter, bulged bar became the norm. Even I started to use them. Along the way, Cinelli went OTB in terms of market share, because their QC was horrible and many of their products were just silly. Anyway, at this point a 215g bar is widely considered to be conservative, and anyone who considers it stupid light is very, very conservative, to the point of ignoring reality.

3) A 332 gram Cinelli 66-42 is intrinsically safe through an unlimited service life in its intended use. You don't need to replace it after a crash, and you don't need to replace it on a regular interval.

The intended use of the Cinelli alloy bar, when introduced, was racing. In high level racing, I doubt very much that teams were ever leaving the same Cinelli bars in service indefinitely. The same is true of modern bars. The crazy CF stuff, to the extent it is ever selected for use, would be switched out frequently, the conservative 215g bars would be switched out less frequently.

All bars and all other parts should be inspected after a crash and on a regular basis in the absence of a crash. With a 215g bar I'd replace it if there was an indication that it was hit (a scrape, a bend, a crack). Same with an old Cinelli. Both could be used after minor damage, but why would you do that? You're taking a risk either way.

4) Ancient GB and OEM Raleigh handlebars pose a smaller risk of catastrophic failure than a 0-2 year old Deda 215. Heck, than a 0-50 year old Deda 215, in typical CR guy years.

Aren't GB bars specifically known to be failure prone? In any case, you're not talking about state of the art metallurgy, by any stretch. But, as you seem to believe, the GBs, the OE Raleighs, and the Cinellis will probably go on a on forever in light use. So would the Deda 215s. That's the thing everyone just seems to skip past. I hear it all the time of CR, and it never fails to amaze me. Things like, "Ergals are great, I've had a set for 30 years and they have never gone out of true," or "Maillard alloy freewheels rock, I've had one for years and years and it has never given me a problem" The thing is, these are people who, for all intents, DO NOT RIDE. Sure, they ride, but not in the way that racing parts are intended to be ridden, which is several hours of daily use for anywhere from a few months to a couple of years. Under that type of use our amazing classic parts wear out. It is under that type of use that the 2-year life of a 215 actually applies. CR classic bike guy use is typically a LOT less rigorous and is often spread among many, many bikes. In typical classic bike enthusiast use, I'd expect a Deda 215 to last even longer than those amazingly durable Fiamme Ergal rims or Maillard alloy freewheels.

5) There are no reasonable handlebar choices in the modern marketplace.

For guys who find 215g bars too light, either because they are big guys and light bars feel too flexy, or because they are preoccupied by potential failure, there are things like the 247g Deda Magic.

6) The design features of modern bars are nothing more than marketing gimmicks.

Look, I will concede that the handlebar market is just a little bizarre. Why so many offerings, and so few choices of practical bends? More perplexingly, why so many offerings in the $150 and up range. The number of CF bars is nutty. That doesn't mean that there is no place for CF bars, or that they are purely gimmicks, but it sure seems odd how much they are pushed. Alloy bars, by number of choices, seem to be in the minority, yet they are probably the better choice for almost all riders, including racers. But I would not look at modern alloy bars as offering nothing but gimmicks. Modern bars do away with the structurally inefficient reinforcing sleeve, have variable wall thickness, are made with more suitable alloys that are heat treated and sometimes surface hardened (work hardened by shot peening). That's not all just gibberish. These are real differences and are the reason that the bars can be lighter while still being safe. The OS center sections alloy bars to be a little stiffer at a given weight. And that's another thing that people are glossing over. Modern racing bikes are not just lighter, they are at the same time more rigid under pedaling loads. The frames, forks, stems, bars, wheels, cranks are all more rigid. For many classic bike enthusiasts this translates to "modern bikes are totally uncomfortable." I sympathize. Hell, when I'm in bad shape (always) I feel like my classic steel bike is too stiff, so a modern OS aluminum bike would probably be hellish, CF might not be as bad. But fat out of shape guys like me putzing around the countyside, or even fit guys doing long daytrips are not the intended users that modern race bike are designed for. If older race bikes work for such guys, it is only because their designs had come as far as they since have, of because they were designed for poor quality roads. I think it is a problem that so many people are on modern racing bikes when something else would better meet their needs, but that doesn't mean there is a problem with modern racing bikes. It means that such bikes are being misused. While a classic racing bike may come closer to meeting the needs of a broader range of today's riders, it is still not the best solution, nor is it the most practical solution. The current market certainly seems to be recognizing that most riders who want a road bike don't need a racing bike, and there are more alternatives in the modern market all the time.

I'd say that you need to be careful what you buy, but modern racing parts are not all just BS and gimmicks. Not everyone needs the latest and greatest, and too many people seem convinced otherwise. But, I don't think old stuff is the answer for everyone, or even for most people, and there are still choices out there that are just as conservative from an engineering perspective, but offer marginally better performance and reasonable cost. I'd sooner pay $200 for a nice set of old logo 66-42's than a cheap set of CF bars, but for a pal looking for a new set of bars, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest dropping $80 on the Deda 215s. Old Cinellis, are collectible and therefore expensive, and are incompatible with all recent stems (and most old ones). The newer Cinelli bars are just junky.

Tom Dalton Bethlehem, Pennsylvania USA

Donald Gillies <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote: I have some vintage handlebars in my garage. I got a $32 55-lbs 'Ultraship' gram scale from Amazon, and I've been enjoying weighing everything in sight. I put a piece of masking tape on the end of each bar, with the weight, in grams. Here are my results :

Raleigh mid-70's 38cm 342 gm as seen on record, gran prix, Raleigh mid-70's 38cm 352 gm super course, competition, Raleigh mid-70's 38cm 360 gm and international models. Raleigh mid-70's 38cm 360 gm GB plain raddoneur 38cm 310 gm as seen on raleigh gran sport GB plain maes 38cm 314 gm GB map of britain 38cm 334 gm as seen on raleigh pro GB map of britain 38cm 310 gm GB ventous deepdrop 40cm 410 gm as seen on carlton flyer Cinelli 64-42 ergo star 42cm 332 gm 1990's Cinelli 65 2xknight logo 42cm 327 gm SR World Custom bird 39cm 310 gm SR Road Champ no sleeve 40cm 274 gm 1980's SR/Raleigh Wreath logo 40cm 296 gm 1980's ITM ? grey ergo sleeved 40cm 312 gm 1990's

Some observations :

Most of today's aluminum handlebars are stupid-light at 210 or 215 grams, i.e. ITM millenium or Deda 215 bars. The reason a lot of us value vintage bikes is because we don't easily fall for 'marketing gimmicks', i.e. "Buy these handlebars, they are stupid-light, and replace them after every crash or ever 2 years, if you survive that long !!"

Most of these vintage bars are from rider bikes that are 30-40 years old. I plan to replace them when they start wearing in ... *GRIN* ... *SNICKER* ...

- Don Gillies San Diego,

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.