I have been using the Morf-Tech which ditches the basebar alltogether, but sold it together with the bike. My new QR V-PR did come with the Vision Metron TFA aerobar.
I have been looking for something with a more narrow basebar and lighter (the Vision setup is 1200g+), but I dont find anything.
Intuitively I would belive that narrower would improve aerodynamics and therefor it puzzles me that 40/38cm is the standard width. While handling is a factor the 40/38 width is truly not needed. Is it just less than marginal gains to have a more narrow handlebar?
Any thoughts?
Or if anyone have advice on aerobars which are both narrow and light I would love it.
Having well designed aero shapes out front may be better than nothing. Hard to divine just how much though without testing… narrower is definitely better if you’re too wide, but wider is definitely better if you’re too narrow
Having well designed aero shapes out front may be better than nothing. Hard to divine just how much though without testing… narrower is definitely better if you’re too wide, but wider is definitely better if you’re too narrow
Yes. Having something in front of your knees in the correct shape may improve aerodynamics. I cant see how having anything outside the knees/legs would not negatively effect performance. But I am open to change my view if anyone has any experience with it.
Once the bars goes wider than the knees it’s pretty much just lost efficiency. The airfoil basebar + brake lever setup on TT bikes is very similar on every modern TT/tri bike. I know aero can be weird, but I can’t see why having the biggest part (brake lever) directly in from of the knee/thigh wouldn’t be the ideal. Most Q factors are ~250mm, so there’s a jumping off point for base bare width.
It really is weird why a company hasn’t started making UCI-minimum width base bars (350mm). I understand the old thinking that bigger bikes=wider bars, and one mold is cheaper than two, but surely for TT base bars even the tallest should be riding 35’s.
3T made the Brezza Nano a few years ago, 30cm wide. Dan even wrote about it https://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Components/3T_Brezza_II_Nano_2526.html
The use case for something like this is so limited - most riders have their armrests around 30cm outside-outside - that it’s just not particularly viable commercially.
If you calculate the CdA change of taking out 10cm of airfoil shaped basebar it’s less than 0.0001, which is tiny. So to get any meaningful speed improvement you’re hoping for interaction effects between bar and legs.
I’ve thought about it quite a bit, because there is a (very) marginal gain and it would be good for riders that have narrow armrests. But the business case doesn’t hold up. There are so few bikes that can take aftermarket bars.
3T made the Brezza Nano a few years ago, 30cm wide. Dan even wrote about it https://www.slowtwitch.com/...za_II_Nano_2526.html
The use case for something like this is so limited - most riders have their armrests around 30cm outside-outside - that it’s just not particularly viable commercially.
**If you calculate the CdA change of taking out 10cm of airfoil shaped basebar it’s less than 0.0001, which is tiny. **So to get any meaningful speed improvement you’re hoping for interaction effects between bar and legs.
I’ve thought about it quite a bit, because there is a (very) marginal gain and it would be good for riders that have narrow armrests. But the business case doesn’t hold up. There are so few bikes that can take aftermarket bars.
^^^^^This.
The part you eliminate is going to be the thin, airfoil section (not the lever or clamp areas).
Also, the big savings from narrow bars is getting the arms narrower…not really an issue for a TT basebar.
It really is weird why a company hasn’t started making UCI-minimum width base bars (350mm). I understand the old thinking that bigger bikes=wider bars, and one mold is cheaper than two, but surely for TT base bars even the tallest should be riding 35’s.
3T made the Brezza Nano a few years ago, 30cm wide. Dan even wrote about it https://www.slowtwitch.com/...za_II_Nano_2526.html
The use case for something like this is so limited - most riders have their armrests around 30cm outside-outside - that it’s just not particularly viable commercially.
If you calculate the CdA change of taking out 10cm of airfoil shaped basebar it’s less than 0.0001, which is tiny. So to get any meaningful speed improvement you’re hoping for interaction effects between bar and legs.
I’ve thought about it quite a bit, because there is a (very) marginal gain and it would be good for riders that have narrow armrests. But the business case doesn’t hold up. There are so few bikes that can take aftermarket bars.
I thought about it quite a bit as well (typically on the hours on the turbo on the TT-bike looking down on my basebar), and understand that reducing it from 40cm to 36cm gives a too small gain to spend a lot of money on. Still, you could ask the question why they are so wide in the first place as its both less aero and heavier.
While getting rid of airfoil shaped basebar does not give a big gain I belive that there should be an effect of moving the brakes away from “clean air” and get it in front of the knees/legs. Know if anyone have gone that path and tested different solutions of that?
It really is weird why a company hasn’t started making UCI-minimum width base bars (350mm). I understand the old thinking that bigger bikes=wider bars, and one mold is cheaper than two, but surely for TT base bars even the tallest should be riding 35’s.
I love Wattshop (and are a huge fan-boy of Dan Bigham) but I do find their products to be one the heavy side for hilly 180k rides. Weight doesnt matter much on regular TT/track but 1kg added is 90 sec extra in Norseman equivalent to 5 watts. And they make mostly UCI-legal stuff as well which limits the potential in triathlons.
I thought about it quite a bit as well (typically on the hours on the turbo on the TT-bike looking down on my basebar), and understand that reducing it from 40cm to 36cm gives a too small gain to spend a lot of money on. Still, you could ask the question why they are so wide in the first place as its both less aero and heavier.
While getting rid of airfoil shaped basebar does not give a big gain I belive that there should be an effect of moving the brakes away from “clean air” and get it in front of the knees/legs. Know if anyone have gone that path and tested different solutions of that?
This kind of circles around the questions you’re asking, but I have always been curious about how a reduced-width USE Tula would perform in contemporary tests*. Of course, these bars present a whole different set of problems that you would need to problem-solve, but to the questions of obviating the effect of brake levers altogether - never mind aligning them in front of the knees - and getting to a 35 (or even narrower) width via some custom cutting of each end of the bar, they would be one solution. (Morelock has more experience with these than I do, and might chime in.)
*reportedly these were quite slippery in their original/stock 40cm configuration, and performed wight up there with that super-deep integrated Ventus back in the day(s).
I had and used for numerous IM’s the USE Tula bars. I liked them for their superior aero-ness, however they did have some functional problems. But, they are very aero indeed. Since I moved away from the USE Tula bars, I then began using the 3T Ventus (the 1st gen Ventus with built in brake levers). IMO, the Ventus bar is extremely fast, possibly more so than the USE. To this day, I still use the 3T Ventus bars.
Xavier (aerocoach) ran these for a long time, I suspect he found them quite fast under the old regulations the UK guys had. You can see inspiration of them in the Vorzug track bars they sell now as well.
I had planned to chop a set up (I think mine were 42’s) to make them narrower… there is a bit of metal bonded inside that acts as cable stops that you’d need to figure out a way around (I was going to use them for track so didn’t matter to me) besides the usual pitfalls of carbon mods. In the end though, the rock&roll system kind of sucks enough that it fell to the wayside in my projects.
In OP’s case… something like these wouldn’t be bad if he found the 40’s and could live with the r&r system, lack of adjustability and pods design. The USE R1’s are a little easier to live with, but there is more hardware to deal with as well…
I have an old thread on here (search something like 3T claims 30 watts new bar or something) from when the Nano’s were originally announced, I think John Cobb and some other guys chime in in the thread talking about width in base bars (fwiw and tl;dr the claim was out of context, narrower bars did gain ~ about 30 watts but in track sprinters not pursuit)
I think John Cobb and some other guys chime in in the thread talking about width in base bars (fwiw and tl;dr the claim was out of context, narrower bars did gain ~ about 30 watts but in track sprinters not pursuit)
But isn’t that simply bar width impacts distance between arms for sprinters whereas pad with impacts for pursuit ?
While we are on crazy savings, Josh @ Silca said an N95 mask will get you 10 watts I think Alan would have more luck with that.
Yes basically the article that made that claim just took something John said about testing narrower bars vs. the standard nitto’s that were in vogue for track sprinters at the time and then transplanted it onto the new (at the time) 3T bars. He clears it up on the last page.
Found the thread, a nice walk down memory lane on how much things haven’t changed. damn, this thread is over a decade old
Link
*having your mouth hanging open probably isn’t great I’ll stick with a beard though.
Of course arguably well worth it, but it’s useful context.
I’ll stick with a beard though.