I have a P3 and need to shorten up the stem. So I was thinking why not just go with whole bar new setup. I hate the external routing on the syntace anyway. I am not so concerned with the aero differences, but more about the best value. I love the Easton, but to expensive. Anyone using the Carbon X or HED? How is the new Vision Tech coming out soon?
Kraig Willet has just recently wind tunnel tested four of the one piece bars. Before you spend your hard earned money it might be worth your while to read his results. It’s a pay site but could save you plenty in the long run.
Oval A-700, stiff, adjustable and relatively cheap. Its lighter than the carbon version too. I would suggest changing the pads as the stock ones are torture for long rides. A seperate stem is a big bonus as you can fine tune your position.
KR
Oval A700. It works really well, less expensive and almost as adjustable as the HED, and gives a lower position than the Profile. Also, having the aluminium extensions, rather than carbon, means that the extensions can easily be trimmed to length without worrying about the aluminium insert in the carbon extensions a la HED and Profile.
They’re pretty light, too.
I have one pair of HED aerobars and one pair of Easton Attack aerobars. I’ve raced and ridden both.
Both are excellent, but very different.
No need to pay $20 for that, save it for your bar purchase. You need to try these bars out to see if you like the fit. The HED and Vision are two very different beasts.
Tom wrote up a great article here, which you can read for free: http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/barwars.shtml
In his article you can see which bars are most aero, by their frontal profile.
I have used Syntace C2, Ahero 3T and now HED.
In terms of aerodynamics, as tested by Cobb, the Vision and HED are very, very close … within seconds of each other over 40k.
So pick the bar that fits you best, which is the most important issue.
Note that the HED is very adjustable. To try out the bars:
If you are in the Michigan area, I suggest you see Bikesport, talk to Tom.
If in these areas, talk to J Cobb or Dave Bunce
Leucadia, California
Chicago, Illinois
Tyler, Texas
Shreveport, Louisiana
San Francisco, California
Atlanta, Georgia
St. Paul, Minnesota
In San Diego, talk to Craig Turner at Nytro.
Thanks all.
Tom,
What do you mean by different. I am setting the bike up for IMFL and am willing so sacrifice some aero/super low position for comfort. I plan on being down in the the whole race with its flat/fast course.
Gary-
Thanks, I am planning to have Rich Ducar set up the bars. I’m in Chicago and Tom is still a drive unfortunately. I read Tom’s review, but was looking for a little more info. I know Rich knows what he is doing, but I what to have some I ideas before I go out there.
Thanks
“No need to pay $20 for that, save it for your bar purchase. You need to try these bars out to see if you like the fit.”
I agree that fit is the most important, but there was actually quite a performance range of the four bars when tested in the wind tunnel. I’d also ad that the wind tunnel is a lot more accurate that trying to go by profile.
To each their own, but if I was dropping big bucks for a new one piece bar or any other aero equipment, the extra twenty bucks for the aero testing results would be well worth it to me. That price also includes all the other studies on the site as well.
Do you if he did the windtunnel tesing of the bars with a rider on the bike? or without the rider?
Yes, agreed, there is an aerodynamic difference between the models, however these tests have already been performed by both Vision, Martin and by Cobb. The difference between the Vision, HED and Carbon X is very minimal, with the HED and Vision inching out the Carbon X by a few seconds over 40k.
I have already seen the aero tests of the Vision against the Carbon X and Cinelli, it outperforms both by a small margin. The info used to be up on the old Vision web site. The comparison between HED and Vision has also been tested recently (although not up on the web), with both of these bars running very similar drag numbers, depending on the levers used on the Vision.
http://visiontechusa.com/aerodynamic-chart.htm
PROJECTED TIME AND SPEED (MPH) FOR 40K DISTANCE
WATTS PRODUCED
BY RIDER >>
250 WATTS
~ 22 MPH
285 WATTS
~ 25 MPH
390 WATTS
~ 28 MPH
450 WATTS
~ 30 MPH
HANDLEBARS
DRAG @ 30 MPH
MPH
TIME
MPH
TIME
MPH
TIME
MPH
TIME
Vision Aero
.590
23.03
1:04:45
25.23
59:07
28.36
52.36
29.88
49:55
Vision Tri-Max
.685
22.93
1:05:01
25.12
59:23
28.23
52:50
29.74
50:08
Profile X-Bar
.704
22.91
1:05:05
25.09
59:26
28.20
52:53
29.72
50:11
ITM Dual Aero
.722
22.90
1:05:08
25.07
59:29
28.18
52:55
29.69
50:14
Cinelli Angel Aero
.759
22.86
1:05:14
25.03
59:35
28.13
53:01
29.64
50:19
ITM Aero CX2
.826
22.79
1:05:26
24.95
59:46
28.04
53:11
29.55
50:28
Syntace Bullhorn/ Syntace C2
.861
22.76
1:05:32
24.92
59:51
28.00
53:16
29.50
50:33
Profile Bullhorn/Split Second
.871
22.75
1:05:34
24.90
59:53
27.99
53:17
29.49
50:35
Drop Bar/Split Second
.929
22.69
1:05:44
24.84
1:00:02
27.91
53.26
29.41
50:43
Overall, the numbers are so small that getting the right fitting bar FAR outweighs the aero numbers. The Vision does not work for me at all (too low), and the Carbon X integrated stem is to long, so you can see that even if these two bars were better than HED I still could not use them.
I suggest posting this to the Bicycle Sports site to get more info from the aero Guru John Cobb, and to get his results, after all he has been in this business longer than just about anyone else, and helped design the Trek TT bike, HED 3D, HED bar and helped Lance to win 4 straight tours!
John is also in the process of building his own wind tunnel.
I paid for Kraig’s tests and feel that it saved me $100s. The differences between the bars are significant. And, BTW, I don’t think you can even get the accurate weights simply from the respective companys’ websites.
– Jens
That’s cool, I was considering buying his bar test as well, but I bought my bar a year ago. I already bought his aero wheel test in the past before buying a new disc. It was a good test.
My point was that the FIT is so different between these bars, that only one or two of them may work for some riders (like me). The HED being the most adjustable, and one of the most aerodynamic to boot.
The problem with aerodynamic testing (wind tunnel) is that there is so much variance between the way a bar is tested, between the testers. Also, different wind tunnels can produce different results for the same product being tested.
The best way is to have the rider on the bike in the tunnel, as they would be on race day, fitted perfectly to their bars. Of course this is very difficult to do, and expensive.
That is why I like Tom Demerly’s article so much. Frontal profile.