Timeline for Reason for handlebar diameter
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | Kaz | In fact handlebars are made from a much thicker tubing which is butted to the narrow diameter, while leaving the wider clamp diameter in the center (which is now a whopping 31-something mm nowadays: much thicker than the rest of the bar). If thicker were better, then less butting could be applied. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 23:06 | vote | accept | Sander Heinsalu | ||
| Apr 18, 2015 at 14:47 | comment | added | Chris H | @DanielRHicks, perhaps "standards" is too strong but "habit" and the range of grips for flat bar bikes come to the same thing in practice. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 13:24 | comment | added | Carel | Historic reason. Tubing was made in that diameter. Stems were made to fit. Pre WWII bars fit stems from the '70s. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 12:49 | comment | added | Daniel R Hicks | @ChrisH - There is no real "standard" for handlebar diameter. Some sizes are, I suppose, "habitual" (and "blessed" by ISO), but new sizes are introduced at the whim of the manufacturers. The fact that there's not a wider variety of sizes is mostly due to the fact that there's no compelling "story" for new ones. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 12:20 | comment | added | Chris H | Just to back up @Blam's point a bit, the aerodynamics would have been approximated, guessed or assumed at the time standards were set, so the small effect we can calculate or measure now may have been taken to be larger. Without a compelling reason to change the diameter of the actual metal it is likely to stay the same. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:48 | comment | added | paparazzo | So you know for a fact aerodynamics is not even design consideration. The only design consideration is grip and they all got that wrong? | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:42 | comment | added | Daniel R Hicks | You do have a point, in that the weight of your body on the handlebar causes pain due to poor blood circulation and pressure on the nerves. However, I once calculated that the bar would need to be 3-4 inches in diameter to totally alleviate this issue. The better way to alleviate pain is to change hand positions frequently and/or have ribbed handlebar covers. There is no great need to grip the handlebar tightly -- there is no significant torque at the grip, unlike a racket. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:21 | comment | added | Sander Heinsalu | More important to the average rider. More important to the biggest market. Also me, but I don't think the manufacturers focus on me. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:16 | comment | added | paparazzo | More important to you. They modify the shape of a seat post for aerodynamics. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:15 | answer | added | Chris H | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:06 | comment | added | Sander Heinsalu | The effect on aerodynamics is very small. And most bikes are not for racing, so grip comfort would be more important than aerodynamics. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 11:03 | comment | added | paparazzo | Then maybe they were not designing for optimal grip. Aerodynamics? | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 10:52 | comment | added | Sander Heinsalu | Not hard, but the optimal grip diameter makes any grip less tiring. | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 10:51 | comment | added | paparazzo | How hard go you think you need to grip a handlebar? | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 10:43 | history | asked | Sander Heinsalu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |