Is Narrow Actually Faster?

[@timothyhoekstra2604]

I love how succinct this video is. Thank you for not dragging these out to 20min, it is great to watch

[@thispod]

This a million times, straight to the point. Liked and subscribed

[@HoardingCleanupPros]

Please do a video on shorter cranks. Love your channel it has helped motivate to race again!

[@GreenEverAfter]

Yes please. Interested in that too myself

[@robertchandler587]

I went to 165mm from 172.5 and felt less strain in my hips. But there are other performance benefits to shorter cranks as well

[@AJXOXO-vz1pn]

@@robertchandler587 that’s interesting. I went from 172.5 to 165 and saw my average power meter numbers go up slightly. I attribute that to ease of being able to generate power on a climb with a greater hip angle. My test is far from scientific though. The 165s just also feel better, can spin easier.

[@AJXOXO-vz1pn]

@@robertchandler587 oh sorry. I read your reply incorrectly. Yeah, shorter cranks are all the rage. I wonder how short is too short. If 165s are this good, maybe I should try 160s.

[@bruceh5933]

I want to try 165’s but trying to find them seems to be tough for road and MTB. Nobody seems to have them in stock to fit my 12 year old Madone or non-Boost gravel bike.

[@ericyonda4209]

as usual, great video Jeff. I think one adjustment to the procedure would be to add 1cm to the stem on the narrower bars. With a constant elbow angle the narrower bars decrease your effective reach pushing your torso slightly up and this may be negating any potential savings.

[@nickdorsett7777]

This is very important

[@DanceTurbo]

Exactly, so narrower but also taller, equalizing the aerodynamic picture.

[@dakalla]

I switched from 42 to a 39cm handle bar and felt not too near, but too high. Set my stem 1cm lower to compensate and it still feels more comfortable.

[@derekkuhl]

I did not realize how controversial the shorter format is. Kudos to you. Straight to the point real world. Your last couple videos have converted me from an occasional watcher to an avid follower.

[@CLONisKING]

I like narrower bars more because the arm position feels much more natural. I usually ride with 38cm nowadays, because with 42cm in the aero tuck position it feels like I twist my shoulders a bit outwards, if you know what I mean. And carbon handlebars are marginally stiffer if they are narrower. This can be a downside or benefit, depending on the terrain you are riding.

[@frozenbean]

Have you measured your shoulders? The distance between your acromions (plus 2cm) is probably around 38cm if it feels more natural on that width of bar.

[@SonnyDarvishzadeh]

Same here. I have narrow shoulders and 38 is my go-to. Though 36-38 without flare is horrible for sprinting. There's no leverage and the whole thing is super twitchy.

[@ConsciousBreaks]

I wouldn't frame it as narrower bars feel more natural. You simply didn't have the correct bar width to match your shoulder width. It's not any different than having your saddle too high-it's all about getting the right fit.

[@frozenbean]

@@ConsciousBreaks makes me think of saddle height and how a few mm can make a world of difference not only in comfort but also in performance.

[@CLONisKING]

@@frozenbean well I'm 6"ft and I have measured my shoulder width to be 40,5cm, so I initially rode with 40cm bars, but then I tried 38cm and even 36cm and I like how this somehow naturally lets you fall into a TT Position. Having your Arms in front of your body instead of on your side, just feels more comfortable to me. But I also love the very narrow TT-Position on a TT-Bike maybe that is why.

[@tccycling]

I've run those 37/42 Enve bars for 3 years now. I get it about minimal benefit from going narrower, but there is also a comfort benefit to the flare, and keeping a wider grip in the drops makes it the best all around bar for me. I'll never go back to a straight bar.

[@ds6914]

gay bar's are so much more fun

[@incurseio]

yeah straight bars suck@@ds6914

[@tygrewesterfield841]

​@@ds6914 dude, what?

[@tygrewesterfield841]

I recently had a Whisky Components carbon bar come to me on a used bike. A 6° flare, you couldn't tell unless you knew it had a flare, that it was flared. Had to really look at it. But this is what made me switch to having all my levers turned in. And ive even thought about buying more of those Whisky bars with that same flare. I could feel the difference! Soon, I should another one of my bikes, and had the levers turned in.... later that week, he told me he loved what I did with the bars, and raved to me about how comfortable it was! This was back in 2022, right about when we saw this becoming normal in the pro peloton, but way before anyone else was really mentioning it. Ride on my friend! Happy riding!

[@ds6914]

@@tygrewesterfield841 more fun than straight bars

[@rodrigocampani4555]

Thanks for taking the time and sharing that with us

[@TimR123]

Cool experiment. I love the clarity of how there IS a difference, but what is it really and does it really matter. It's worth noting that some people believe that the 'conventional' (of the last 20-30 yrs) width bars are ergonomically suboptimal for the average rider too. That we should be running slightly narrower than the normal rules of thumb for fit reasons. Not sure how you'd really test that practically but...

[@NoahStone-gu4hx]

I would love to see a video about just using an aero weel in the front. The rationale for this is that the air turbulence at the rear is significant enough to make the weight savings from a lighter rear wheel more beneficial than the aerodynamic advantages. Thanks for the amazing content.

[@ChrisMillerCycling]

Came for the B-roll … stayed for the results ❤

[@MichaelHemmerlin]

Great video Jeff, one note on how the narrower bar allows you to get into a more aero position, the flare of the bar puts the top off the hoods closer to 33-35cm. By grabbing near the end of the hoods in the “aero hoods position” the flare allows you to roll your arms and shoulders in quite a bit tighter. I’d be interested what kind of gains would result from that sort of position

[@swunson]

i’d be interested at looking at the effects on your wrists, too. I know mine only like a littttle bit of bend in compared to some of these guys.

[@chrisko6439]

37cm would be too narrow for my taste, but I feel way more comortable since I switched from 42 to 40. Thanks to Francis Cade for his videos with the bike fitter.

[@liamkennings9833]

The only reason that I would swap out my 42cm bars for narrower ones would be for comfort as my shoulder width measures around 40cm.

[@stuartdryer1352]

My guess based on my own experience is you would find narrower to be a lot more comfortable. I'm really glad a bike fitter here suggested it.

[@justinofboulder]

I don't race, but really do enjoy these videos. Thanks for great content!

[@swunson]

makes you wanna race though

[@yspegel]

I always found 42 too wide, I didn't try more narrow but I like 39 way more. Also, the biggest positive surprise when I started experimenting with my steer and break handles was that I find handlebars pointing inward so much more comfortable to ride for my wrists. Also that way to rest your wrist on the steer while in aero position is nice.

[@MasteringGrappling]

I was running 40cm bars on my first couple of bikes. I always wanted the bars to be a little bit more narrow while on rides. When I picked up my new bike I decided to use 38cm bars and it’s a great fit for me. I am a smaller rider. I am 5’7” tall and the narrower bars fit me better. For racing or unless you are a smaller rider I think narrower bars is a better “fit”. Otherwise there is not purpose in feeling uncomfortable just to look cooler or for the marginal gains.

[@sabastanknight6168]

Thanks for posting that and closing out the point in a few concise mins !!! Keep em coming 👊🏾🙌🏾

[@thetinusnl8834]

What I missed in this video is your shoulder width (or I am deaf/blind). I remember you saying you were relatively broad shouldered? What about 42 vs 37 cm handlebars on someone with

[@kidsafe]

I have 37cm shoulders and have been running 32.5cm AeroCoach Ornix bars on one bike and 35cm Enve SES Aero bars on another bike. I've gotten used to the AeroCoach bars and the Enves feel like a big yellow schoolbus steering wheel. They key for aero gains is to change your fit accordingly. Per 2cm lost in width, most people should add 1cm in stem length. Tuck your elbows in and make sure the fit doesn't result in the knees+elbow interference at TDC.

[@derekkuhl]

Top rate content. I really appreciate the unbiased unvarnished approach!

[@AsouPhilly]

We need a comparison test of that allez sprint @4:58 vs your team race bike. Same wheels and everything else

[@timwong3532]

Surprised by the results, but love that this vid was short and sweet. Jeff, I'm reasonably local to you, ride a 54cm Soloist with the same Enve bars, have Assioma power pedals, and love geeking out over A/B comparisons like the ones you've been recently doing (have done a few myself actually). Hmu if you'd like to collaborate and have an additional data point for any future vids.

[@swunson]

knock knock

[@timwong3532]

@@swunson who dat

[@kennethward9530]

My Trek 600 purchased in 1985 came with 38 cm bars on a 59 is cm frame-what’s old is new again it would seem.😅

[@anthonyharris483]

Yeah back then the bikes had super narrow bars with extra long stems😂

[@kennethward9530]

Maybe the new formula for fit is handlebar width should be twice crank arm length, e.g. if running 170mm crank arms, handlebars should be 34 cm, if 160mm cranks, 32 cm handlebars. Seems correct, at least for track bikes, crit bikes should be similar...@@anthonyharris483

[@falkononskiis4549]

This helped me so much - I was considering narrower bars, but wasn't sure of the quantified benefit.

[@iyadkamhiyeh527]

Nice video, short and straight to the point, also the videography is on point!

[@npc4188]

i love your real world experiment without the marketing of big brand you tube channels

[@Fluximity]

I currently use 40cm drop which is not that narrow and wide, it's perfect where i can sprint easily on the drop and be narrow at the tops if I needed to be aero

[@thenoclue90]

Narrow bars for me feel much more natural and comfortable and that’s why I always add them. Anything else is bonus. Same with flat top/aero bars being more comfortable to rest my hands while on long climbs. Plus better cable management and look.

[@ken1727]

Great info and test. Thank you for making it.

[@Gufolicious]

i really enjoy these videos lately. keep up the good work.

[@rikuwilson3407]

Would be interesting to see comparison between different crank lengths.

[@АнтонАлексеенко-р1у]

How do you see 300W delivered to the crank be different from 300W delivered to the crank? The only difference there might be the feel or maybe marginal increase in cornering pedaling clearence, which is not really quantifiable

[@Jay-nt2ew]

@@АнтонАлексеенко-р1у more people are realizing that shorter cranks allows them to more comfortably pedal at a higher cadence, which is more efficient and transfers the effort from your legs to your heart. crank length on most bikes are a little too big imo. not sure how NorCal cycling would test this tho..

[@SouthernRotors]

I've always ran 172.5 cranks for about thirty years, started doing more aero rides as I can get pretty low and still make power over a longer period of time, tried 165mm cranks and then finally went to 152mm cranks. I can go for quite a while in an aero position on the 152's. There are trade offs for sure but I wouldn't go back, but then again I'm fifty years old so anything that's easier on the hips I like lol

[@АнтонАлексеенко-р1у]

@@SouthernRotors How tall are you? 152mm sounds a bit extreme for me

[@NorCalCycling]

pedal clearance and cornering ability is what makes shorter cranks the better option, at least for me.

[@alainpfammatter8224]

Great video 👏👍. Thats exactly what I was asking myself. Keep up the good content like this video and the video with the tyre width.

[@HUNHali]

Hey Jeff! Appreciate the testing, and I know how much time and effort it takes (also to hold 15 mins in that position multiple times), but please do multiple runs of these (at least 2-3 per setting). Unfortunately this 'lack of a difference' is most likely caused by environmental differences, and in theory and based on previous testing, should be more. As you know, 1-2 gusts of wind or a slight change in position can easily make it so the result is actually opposite of what's expected. With multiple runs, it's less likely. It's a long shot, but if you have multiple experiments, you can use statistics to tell if the difference is actually statistically significant (with set confidence), or just random noise. Also it gives you a metric to tell how much you can actually trust your measuring system (in these outside tests it's likely that due to environmental changes, your experiment has a bigger standard deviation the the actualy measured difference, in which case your result is not significant). It would be worth looking at past results as well, where you did multiple runs.

[@russellinthebush2897]

Yep, I think it would be a fairly simple argument to say that no conclusion can be made with the test as is. Statistically, it would probably be safer to speculate that there is no discernable difference between the two bars.

[@andrew6889-p5c]

Interesting and straight to the point. Appreciate that.

[@crbondur]

I'm glad you shared these results. I was actually thinking about purchasing narrower bars for my road bike. Based on your findings, I just need to focus more on my body position instead.

[@mathiasvw]

Great Videos! It would be great if you could test the penalty of bottles on the downtube. It would be especially interesting to know if there is a difference between an aero frame and a normal frame (assuming that the penalty should be bigger for an aero frame). And if you have one bottle already, does a second make any significant difference? There are quite some wind-tunnel tests, but as always they do not represent real life, and especially not normal roadbike setups. Thx!

[@Mr.Hotman]

Best vid so far - I appreciate you!

[@connorclouston2533]

*IMPORTANT TO EXTRAPOLATE* 15 minutes: 4 seconds savings 60 minutes: 16 seconds savings 120 minutes: 32 seconds savings 240 minutes: 64 seconds savings It may not be a MAJOR aero or watt benefit, but saving a 60s at the pro level could be the difference between podium or not. Great video!

[@matmerah3700]

If you are doing ITT, But in a peloton it's worth nothing.

[@DR_1_1]

@@matmerah3700 You might even get a better "suction" effect with wider bars...

[@kevinderung8524]

the largest benefit to different bar widths is overall fit/comfort, narrower shoulders=narrower bars, 42 cm are often too wide for the average cyclist...small bonus is the marginal aero advantage

[@buster.keaton]

Appreciate the video as it helped me squelch that inner money waster that wanted to replace the expensive carbon aero bars that my bike came with for a slightly narrower version.

[@jwfriar]

Jeff testing the real shit out there!! And on the bike I ride, can’t hate that. I wonder if there is a limit on savings going narrower once it gets narrower than your shoulders bc you can’t bring them in much more. Like if you want 45 to 40 would that be bigger savings - I suspect it might, would be cool, but difficult to test

[@andrasszabo1570]

I don't think there is, based on Jan-Willem van Schip. He's a Dutch track cyclist (2x world champion). Even at his size (6'4", 185), he rides with 30 cm bars even in road races and would go lower but for UCI rules. He's a known aero nut, he must've tested it out and found the speed difference outweights the uncomfortability. He's a professional though. I don't think your average amateur club rider really needs to ride on such monstrosities...

[@338386]

Great stuff Jeff. We're loving this controlled comparison series. Test idea - Compliant vs. stiff bike? Get two cervelos (endurance vs. race) and get the geometry the same, same wheelset, hidden cables, equalize their weight. Then test it using your protocol plus one with intervals/surges (ie., crits). i've got two bikes and the stiff one feels faster (it also beats me up), but is it really faster??

[@swunson]

I mean, there’s so many variables at play with this…..

[@callebedrumss]

the orange box was not aligned with the time axis in the graph, and it hurt my brain 🤣

[@adammeyer4928]

The 14:45 label on the time axis is a mistake. It should say 14:36 - Each line is about 11 seconds. The orange box is in the right place though

[@swunson]

i’m glad someone else caught this

[@vorzap]

I’m 6’6” and unapologetically use 36cm bars with a 140mm stem. In terms of aero watts the drag is 1w per cm. So very marginal. The biggest advantage is that you can be in any hand position and still have body between other riders. So there is less to protect when in close contact with other riders. Your handlebars are totally protected by your arms regardless of hand positioning on the bars. I can’t really comment on sprinting because I have never been good at it but in my case I have tried 46cm bars before and it didn’t make any difference. If anything having the narrow bars feels like driving a sports car vs the wider feels like driving a U-Haul

[@Stevenafoe]

Good to know, thx. I had my doubts when choosing new bar, but i choose the wider one, due to shoulder width and comfort for my body/built. I focus on my own body position, which has way more possible gains.. thx 🙏

[@vyprcanakunda]

Someone probably already wrote it/been done by others, but I would like to see diference in inner tubes done by you. Butyl - Latex - TPU - Tubeless. I came from butyl to latex and thought it was incredible performance boost in rolling resistance but it could also be placebo.

[@ErnieJakubowski]

After4 years of in wind tunnel testing, I feel that the flared drops did effect your numbers. Retest with non flared 37mm bars. There should be less turbulence. less watts.

[@cyclingturbotraining]

I know there was some elevation to go through but 4 seconds saved at 22mph ( 35,2 km/h) is not small IMO. Increase the speed and distance a little bit and this difference would be bigger. Additionally, both handlebars have aero profiles, so if someone is considering switching from non-aero bar to narrower aero bar, then again they can expect a bit more gains.

[@xVertOx]

Imagine being in a breakaway and getting 4 seconds just because of a narrower handlebar. Poor all these riders who were caught by the peloton on the last meters! As long as it does not make you uncomfortable and less aero, I think a narrower handlebar is the best choice for an upgrade.

[@okday72]

I really like these videos. What I tend to think of as an average cyclist is energy saved over a 4 to 6 hour ride in different conditions (like head winds). On longer rides the small savings really add up, maybe not in speed but effort.

[@lostboy8814]

I would rather have the comfort of the wider 42'' bar mainly because I am broad shouldered.Let's face it gaining 4s over a course of 15 minutes ain't worth all the hype.Thank you for confirming this.

[@jamesbancroft2418]

Great video! Thanks Jeff. This season is have decided to angle my hoods in. I run stock bars on my BMC RoadMachine, but have found that the feel on the angled hoods is way more comfortable for me. Screw the UCI :)

[@GeorgeWehner]

It would be cool to see a comparison of traditionally lubed vs waxed chains. I know a lot of guys who have switched to wax for performance reasons and I’m curious how much of a difference it really makes.

[@michprent]

Thats a great idea! Please test it

[@fleurdelispens]

For me, I switched to wax not for the efficiency claims but because it makes your drivetrain last longer. According to Zero Friction Cycling's cost to run calculator, I'll save about $70 over 10,000km by switching from the best oil-based lube to a middle of the road wax. Also I run a 3x8 speed drivetrain so parts are pretty cheap. You'll probably save more if you're running modern 11 or 12-speed stuff

[@richardggeorge]

@@fleurdelispens my chains last over 15,000km running pure parrafin wax. Super cheap aud$25 for 5kg (used only 1/3 of this in 7 years across 7 bikes). Only use a rag and boiling water to degrease. Saves so much time, cost, and effort. The only pain is degreasing the chain initially (I follow the Friction Facts recommendation of Mineral Turpentine to degrease, and Methlyated Spirits to strip the chain of any remaining turps). The improved chain efficiency is just a bonus. I can ride 300-400km between waxings (depending on dust and water exposure). Edit: I should note I only run 10, 9 and 8 speed chains to 0.75 wear mark on Park Tool chain checker.

[@fleurdelispens]

@@richardggeorge I bought Silca's super secret wax and their degreaser for the convenience. That bag of wax means I don't even need a crock-pot; just drop the bag in a pot of boiling water. The degreaser also makes chain prep a super simple one-step process.

[@richardggeorge]

@@fleurdelispens that sounds very handy! That Silca wax is really expensive here in Australia (20 times more expensive than my paraffin wax and my dedicated slow cooker was only $15 from Kmart). I am tight a$$ though.

[@sytsedijkstra]

Can you test the bottle in rear pocket hack found by Dylan Johnson in the windtunnel but then in real life. Preferably with a skin suit. 🚀

[@Mike_Stanford]

ooh this would be good, test it in the center back pocket of the jersey...THEN test it with the bottle tucked into the jersey like the pros do with their vests or motogp racers aero attachment near the neck..great idea

[@xuchenglin6256]

I'm revisiting this video after an extensively looking into this narrow handlebar aero thing. Few things I found are: 1. The lower/more aggressive you go, the smaller the difference. This could explain why the effects on you are not that significant. This is well illustrated in the Cycling Weekly video ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/qX2onmWBr852jMU&ab_channel=CyclingWeekly ). At (9:33) it shows that the biggest gain comes at a relaxed hood position which is quite upright (45 degree torso angle, with a whopping 34.4 watts saving), but when you get into that aero hoods position it shrinks to just 10 Watts. Because your position is so good so I guess that partly explains why the result. 2. There's a starting point to see significant gains, and the point of diminished return seems very far away (well below 30cm). That means if you go from 46 to 44 probably you won't see much difference because in either case you just can't hide your arm in front of your body. They are the same 2 cylinders sticking out in the air. But if you go from 42 to 38, assume your shoulder width is 40, then that could be a significant gain. Then again, after that point the narrower you go, the more similar you are with a TT position. And that diminished point of return seems at well below 30cm. So I think maybe you can try some much more aggressive bars like those Worx ones, or some 32cm cheap Fouriers ones, to see if you can get a more significant benefit? I think if that's a little bit significant than this then it's a worth in a breakaway situation or sprint. In a practical point of view, I think you will see the narrower bar taking over especially in the amateurs in the next few years. Because they are the most benefited -- they ride that 45 degree relaxed position the most. Good racers like you can just get into that aero position -- no reason to ride at 45 kph in upright position, and the narrower effect would be much smaller. While it's those who can't get into that same aero position now get significantly reduced drag from the narrow bars without becoming more flexible. This along will push the change because finally the bikes are sold to amateurs, instead of something like BB stiffness that nobody can actually feel, this one is much so real. This seems to be the most low hanging fruit right now. As a result of my "pursuit" I finally jumped on the train and got the PRO Aero Pursuit alloy handlebar which is 36 c-c at hoods and 40 c-c at drops with flat aero top and a reasonable price. In no way I'll do some controlled science but during my test run it seems in my usual fast sections I now hit 44.x kph consistently while before it's 42.x, never seen anything 44 so that really pops up when I see the data after ride. I don't think handling is something that's noticeable if not even more stable, but as a bonus point it turns out that it's the first time that I get the hoods position right - Now I can wrap the hoods with my hand and shockingly found that my little finger can just rest naturally at that smaller lever of the shifter and I can even shift with that finger with minimal force, and there's even a groove for that finger to rest! What a surprise. Before I run 42 bars and my shoulder measures at around 39.5. Thank you for putting the effort! Your testings are brilliant, the best now on YT. Keep doing it!

[@joelv4495]

I'm 6'4" and new bikes in my size usually come with 46cm bars. I recently tried 42cm bars and canted the controls inward just slightly. Wow, the comfort difference was incredible.

[@stennan]

Could you test whether the narrower bars will impact your power for shorter periods (10s, 30s, 60s)? I imagine that the drops will feel the same if they indead have the same leverage when getting out of the saddle, but it might be interesting to test on a trainer or on a flat sprint section.

[@jongoerke8983]

Thanks for this! Was very curious.

[@NorCalCycling]

Glad it was helpful!

[@LyfeisByke]

Next video should be the accumulation of all the aeroness and rolling resistance goodies vs what your avg joe blow wears and rides on the weekend. Rider 1 - same frame and wheels, race tires, skin suit, aero helmet, aero socks, narrow bars etc. Rider 2 - same frame and wheels, training tires, regular kit, vented helmet, short socks, 42 bars etc. Everyone does the wind tunnel video of “this and that” saved me X amount of watts and then they give you a calculation of how much time it’ll save you in a race but no one actually has a real world video of it all. I think it would be a good one.

[@bertilyoungandersen8395]

your bikefit also changes when getting a narrower bar, so the reason why the narrow effect didnt work might be beacause you need a little longer stem to have the same upper body height from the ground - good video, straight to the point, no bs

[@bobzuidema3560]

I ran a 42cm before and now a 38cm, it helps me to be more relaxed in the shoulders and the grip on the hoods now fits like a glove, also my somewhat turned in hoods play a role in that hood feeling too.

[@travispyle2905]

do it again, but stay tucked down in a super aero position. How long can you hold that position for each bar (for the full 14 minute?). What is your heart rate and power for both runs... this will show if you are working harder (for the same wattage) to hold that aero position on the wider bars (compared to the narrow bars).

[@SouthernRotors]

I run zipp 36cm non flared bars, they are faster by a good bit than the old days when I used 44cm bars.

[@halimabdmanaf7437]

Short, concise & easy to comprehend vdo. Get to the point! 👍

[@benjaminmirt5029]

Yo. Snowden back in the US. Sweet!

[@drmrboss]

U guys in USA and GCN in UK favours larger tyres as road are quite rough. I bet 28 would be better in Australia and other countries with better road.

[@stuartdryer1352]

I'm probably about the same height as you, maybe a bit broader in shoulders. Definitely going a little bit narrower than used to be customary is a lot more comfortable for me. It keeps my wrists in a more natural position. I've never gone all the way to 37, so I don'tknow how it would feel. But 40 is good for me with drops that don't flair much. If I still raced crits (and younger!) I might go more narrow for reasons you mentioned.

[@papaonyx]

Good comparison and good size video, thank you. But any comparison brings more questions. Comparing for same power is good (yes, more measurements would increase statistical significance as mentioned before) but what about max power or sustaining more power for longer? Something else that could play a role is that size comparisons can not be absolute but relative to your shoulders/body/way you produce power. If your ideal would be 40 both 42 and 37 could be off by a similar amount.

[@diegoeleazar9154]

Does changing handlebar width affects breathing?

[@lolbubs11111]

No

[@allthebeanerguy]

As someone who has been running 38s for years, for the “areo gains” it’s great to be put in my place. Narrower is more comfortable for me. Comfortable is smooth and smooth is fast.

[@theh2ohammer372]

I find this interesting, i just got a 1970s, Schwinn Chicago road bike, and my handle bars are 35cm, with slightly turned in, brake levers, which seems to be what the "new" riding style is trying to be.

[@rayF4rio]

On a side note, I love how your chart of the results shows the critical importance of the correct y-axis scale in regards to understanding differences in results. And it points out the so often overlooked manipulation of statistics for nefarious purposes.

[@jacobmondi7898]

Awesome content!! Thanks for helping people avoid spending extra on things that don't actually make us much faster lol

[@simonwarmer8777]

I went from the Zipp aerobar (your old one) 40cm to Zipp 38cm. Feels faster, more compact. Now I see it’s only faster in my mind😀

[@SonnyDarvishzadeh]

if your head is that wide, I guess you're a sniper's dream 😂

[@ryanrobinson3649]

The test was only run with one rider (with a larger frame body). I think a smaller/narrower rider would benefit more from the narrower bars. The wide bars would put the arms well beyond the outer perimeter of the torso for a narrower rider. It would be interesting to see it tested that way.

[@sven2793]

Love the comparison videos! What I’d like to see compared are a modern round tube titanium or steel frame versus a recent aero bike. Both with racing geometry, fully integrated aero cockpit, same components and wheels. Obviously vintage metal bikes are slower, but what if everything except for the frame is the same?

[@tommyfreckmann6857]

I have tested this with Colnago C40 vs Dogma F10.

[@alexjohnson6462]

The big lie-by-ommission with round tubing when they say it is less aero (creates drag behind the tail edge of the tubing) is they never make a comparison between the much broader carbon tubes versus much narrower metal tubes. The GCN "bro science" textbook analysis which they always love to make when they show the little picture of the different tubing shapes and the drag profile it makes basically assumes an equal frontal area, which in real life they are not. I do almost exclusively time trialing (10 mile specialty) and thousands of hours of my data on the same courses daily for over a decade has shown almost no statistical advantage between my preferred trainer (a 1992 Merlin titanium with shallow rims and round 32 spokes) versus several of my brand new carbon aero bikes (all of which have almost identical geometry; all my aero bikes having 60mm carbon rims with low spoke count bladed spokes and integrated cables on all aero bikes. Also, most of my aero bikes have a similar weight to my old titanium, which is another cruel joke the bike industry has played on us all). The time differences between my aero bikes versus my Merlin titanium is within margin of error. You simply could not ever discern any difference using any scientific method when doing real-world testing on the course. It will always be within margin of error of under (+/-) 6 seconds or so over the 10 mile TT's I do. In fact, most of my PR's were made with my Merlin bike. Sadly, the only thing my aero bike consistently gets me that I can say is absolute, is a more nerve racking experience when there are side winds.

[@tommyfreckmann6857]

@alexjohnson6462 interesting. I find my Dogma F10 woth aero wheels on on crosswinds is more stable than my C40 as a package. However, I recently did another test just this past weekend for one last time as all previous tests were so close. The F10 vs C40 have identical fit coordinates, aero shaped 36cm bars, and same 60mm wheels swapped between tests and utilizing same Assioma dual sided PM. My results were on back to back and switching between bikes to limit environmental change. And I did first test with 350 watts on uphill portion from set point to point with 250 watts on down hill, average speed was 26 on C40 and 26.1 on F10. And 2nd test was consistent 300 watts for 10 mins whilst maintaining aero hoods position. F10 was 26.2 mph, and C40 was 25.8mph.

[@sven2793]

@@alexjohnson6462 According to “bro science” and marketing, a metal frame with round tubes should basically make you go backwards.😁 But they often compare vintage material to modern bikes. Metal frame builders have finally caught up and are offering very clean looking, fully integrated aero cockpits, which has renewed my interest. A direct comparison should be interesting. I suspect that the majority of aerodynamic gains are made at the front and that everything behind the bottles and knees is largely insignificant because of turbulence, at least in the real world. Your testing seems to suggest the same.

[@sven2793]

@@tommyfreckmann6857 While the C40 is neither metal nor has it round tubes, it is a stunning bike and definitely an interesting one to compare with a more modern bike. So from your test it looks like on the Colnago you’re loosing just under 1 second per kilometer on a flat stretch at 42kph. That’s actually more than I had expected. My hunch was that modern aero bikes, at least in real world turbulent conditions, almost exclusively benefit from their clean front ends, i.e. aero cockpit, wheel and fork.

[@FlyingGravelMan]

Very interesting! Im curious how this would apply in the gravel scene where wider handle bars are often associated with faster cornering!

[@IsaacRC]

I use 46 cm for more lateral stability, comfort is useless if the Gravel terrain makes you fall

[@DanceTurbo]

I want to challenge the video for not taking advantage of what narrow bars also offer, which is a longer reach and lower body angle for the same saddle to hood measurement. Running narrower bars with the same stem length effectively shortens the reach and the riders body is naturally taller to compensate, mitigating aerodynamic gains.

[@michaelliu6570]

Test the tire widths running tubeless.

[@chrisajr1994]

Loved how quick the video was! But doesn't the performance benefit of bar width mostly have to do with the shape of the rider? As in, I'm not sure that broad-shouldered rider would experience the same benefit of narrower bars as a smaller rider.

[@pochi1990]

Very useful verification. I see your riding form of front view ,your elbow little bit wider I think.(at 370mm handlebar) When narrow setup ,elbow position like TT style.(I thought)

[@SrFederico]

Isn’t the handling getting more and more instable and finicky the narrower the bars get?

[@FrankMOrtiz]

You should've tried Worx 24/33 track bars and given the narrow bar a legit chance to excel beyond the powermeter error bar.

[@ToddZilinski]

Narrow bars don't work for me. I have broad shoulders and when I dropped down to 40cm bars, my back muscles would eventually lock up and restrict my breathing, which is slow. I use 44cm bars. This happened to me on both road and track bikes. Does this only happen to me?

[@SrFederico]

I got 47 cm wide shoulders, ride 44 cm bars and am happy so far. On narrower bars I have to collapse my shoulders which doesn’t feel and can’t be good.

[@jordanperformance]

Why not test at actual race speeds? I'd assume its a much higher delta between 22mph and 28-30mph like you'd see in a p12 crit. I get that it's hard to keep the speed that high on your own but why not bring a motorpacer and see what the data says. I bet it'll show a bigger difference between the 2 widths at higher avg speeds. Sick video as always!

[@NorCalCycling]

like you mentioned it's hard to ride 28-30 solo for 15+ minutes multiple times 😅. also hard to find a motorpace to help production. Not to mention that adds another variable... how close was i to the moto? was it the same between runs? did he keep a constant speed, what about uphill vs downhill? this is all too complicated to test, but i appreciate the suggestion!

[@jordanperformance]

@@NorCalCyclingit would be like a derny. You maintain the steady power output and derny paces in front of you while you tell him or her faster or slower. Sure there would be some variances, but I bet you could keep it really steady for 15 mins, long enough to get quality data. Love the technical stuff. Nice change of pace from race reviews. keep em coming!

[@anthonyjones1179]

I use a 46cm bar due to wide shoulders, narrow bars are just plain uncomfortable and changing normal bars to flared bars is plain uncomfortable. I also dumped my flared bars and am much happier, I don't race road bikes though.

[@eragon6946]

I am of the opinion that you shouldn't change out to narrower bars if you are chasing speed. Handle bar length should be aligned with your shoulders and proportional to your build. If you choose something wider or narrow than what your body's structure determines, you will ultimately feel very uncomfortable, which could lead to shoulder stress and strain especially over the course of long rides. Just get a bike fit; when I did, the first thing changed out were my handlebars. Once I got used to the new ones, which only took a couple of rides, I felt at one with my bike. 😃👍

[@mohamadjamil3164]

Please test compact Vs normal chainrings and crank lengths.

[@NorCalCycling]

Neither of these impact performance, at least as it relates to speed

[@dmitry.gashko]

Wy do you keep spoilering the results with just slightly blurred graphs?

[@jonathan_guerrero]

Thanks for the awesome info like always. May I please know what shoes and glasses you are wearing here? Lol

[@Lockeness86]

4 seconds sounds minimal, but 4 seconds at 22.1 mph = 130 feet. So at the finish, the gap between the narrow bars and the wide bars was ~1.5 basketball courts!

[@peterharrington8709]

Hang on though, if you narrow the bars you have to either move the saddle back or use a longer stem. If not you'll be sitting more upright. Or am I missing something??

[@2Thecoolguy]

as someone currently deliberating on bar width, could you share any details on the quantitative and qualitative differences you feel while sprinting? as a sprinter myself, definitely don’t want to lose leverage and therefore power, but wondering where that tipping point is… would greatly value your input, Jeff!

[@NorCalCycling]

37 feels weird when i'm out of the saddle climbing, but when i'm sprinting i'm in the drops and these flair to 42 so it feels good

[@TheCyclesport]

I definitely saw a difference in the exact position and configuration of the Garmin mounts on the handlebars between the 2 bikes. Can you please fix this and repeat the tests for the collection of the actual correct data you were searching for in this original test when the Garmin mounts were not identically placed on the bike setup. 🙃

[@therider4909]

I saw this too. I paused at 0:46 & have to wonder whether the slightly proud Garmin on the 42cm bar could possibly make a difference. But as @NorCalCycling has commented elsewhere above, there are plenty of potential factors that could affect the result - traffic, drafting, powermeter consistency... Kudos to Jeff for running these tests, they're great. 👏

[@TheCyclesport]

@therider4909 Jeff is awesome!! I have known him for years. Even when he was just a Cat. 4, I still talked to him and knew he was going to upgrade quickly. He has shown 100% to be one of the very, very best from Nor-Cal. It's been great to watch his overall progression as a Racer. 👏

[@mmfong297]

I have both 38 and 40cm on two different bikes. The 38 feels like I am flexing my core muscles more especially on climbs, this in turns causes more fatique. I am by no means have very wide shoulders but prefer sticking with 40cm. The flare tho.. makes me "feel" faster on the break. Thanks for clarifying this~

[@FocusDima]

If your shoulders aren't flexible and anthropometrically they are quite wide you won't benefit from narrower bars.. It's like a TT position. If you can't hold it physically there is no point of lowering front end and narrowing arm rests etc. First comfort, right fit, then speed))

[@obikedog]

A marginal gain showing up in five miles is significant when you're talking races that are decided by seconds. And for those who race endurance or gravel such a gain can equates to 2.5 minutes over the course of my A race. All things being equal - you have the money - why not change? Additionally, as a smaller rider, I'm often forced to bin the bits like cranks, saddles and bars with which a bike ships. Even one otherwise sized for me. So I swapped out the 44s my bike came with immediately for those exact bars (+ aero extensions + 165 cranks and a 14mm saddle.)

[@martinbichler7089]

Two Cervelo Soloist's 🤩🤩🤩

[@mateagoston8145]

How about testing the uci illegal position, the invisible TT bar position? If it's legal in the us championships then you might give it a go.

[@J_CART3R]

is 400mm and 420mn has a bbig different? there's no 400mm available for my bike. only 420mm.

[@victorrodriguez2806]

You were extremely fortunate to have the two identical bikes to make this test comparison on. I suspect if we were able to test rim brakes against disc brakes. The rim brake would have the faster time. ( with Identical bikes). And the same would go with a true comparison between electronic shifting, and cable actuated derailleurs. All this fluff we read about and new stuff being pushed at the bike shops is all for sales. ( generate more revenue) Team UAE won the tour de France on rim brakes. Because there is NO advantage in the premium race bike level. Heck!! No one even does honest reviews on the new carbon frames. The testers always point out the features and benefits. No one will come out and say. " wow! That felt awful" Some of the new carbon bike really feel awful and just down right suck! Anyway, sorry about the rant. Good job on your comparison.

[@NathanLloyd69]

I'd think the narrow in the hoods out of the saddle would be atrocious! I would agree, bars need to match your shoulder size but narrow than that seems like a big negative for a blip of time that might honestly be scientific error.