Review
Race Face Era Bars and the Bar Width Conundrum
I find out daily that I've been wrong about something all along. Every other day, I realize I have been handling a task I have assigned myself incorrectly. Sometimes I get lucky and my misapplication of the process ends me in a sweet spot, where I should have arrived but failed to do so under my own piloting. These happy little accidents guide me in the right direction but often I need to be prodded down the hallway. In this case, the hallway is a shoulder-width beast that requires agility to be guided down and to figure out which room you want to sneak into. Check the doorknobs, push the branches away. I need about 780mm of space for that dance but I am fine with 810mm too. What I am realizing is that the older I get, the more space my achy bones need. Wider bars allow for more leverage on the rider end to keep the front wheel in line. Sure you can be Richie Rude-strong and muscle 750mm bars around on an EDR track, but for most of us, wider bars provide the stability we need when riding fast on rough trails.
It's a new Era.
Race Face Era Carbon Bars
Race Face has been making carbon stuff for a long time. With technology borrowed from Easton, the BC-based company developed and, for a short period, churned up carbon parts in Canada. The Era model name covers a lineup of products aimed at Enduro and hard trail riding. The idea is that the more comfortable you are holding onto your bars, the longer and harder you can ride.
The catchy term Race Face uses for the Era handlebars is GL or Goldilocks Tune. There is a mythical sweet spot between stiff enough to be precise and soft enough to stay comfortable for each rise and width option. Era bars can be purchased in 9 different width and rise configurations with 6 colours available for each option. (SKU nightmare for shops!)
- 10mm Rise in 760, 780 or 800mm
- 20mm Rise in 760, 780 or 800mm
- 40mm Rise in 760, 780 or 800mm
- 8° Backsweep, 5° Upsweep, 224 grams (800 x 40mm - verified)
- Grey, Stealth, Orange, Red, Blue, Kashmoney
- Lifetime warranty for defects or crashes
All this optimization would mean that an 800mm bar cut to 780 versus a 780 bar left full length would have different flex characteristics. The cut bar would be stiffer than the uncut bar at the same length. While Race Face would rather have you buy the correct width bar to begin with, they still provide you with trimming marks.
This is where I noticed some interesting characteristics.
I don't generally ride 35mm bars but Race Face's new Era handlebars might change that.
The transition from one bar to the other has been easy thanks to the similar angles.
Before the 40mm rise 800mm wide Era bars showed up with a matching Turbine stem, I happily ran my 31.8 clamp aluminum PNW bars at 780mm on an NSB Overlord stem. Or so I thought. The Orbea Rallon these were mounted on ran happily along and the fit was excellent in every way. The "big bike" steered with confidence and a 5'8" guy with long arms did his best to steer the ship down the mountain. I love the PNW bars and the noticeable flex they offer for rough trail comfort. While the bike doesn't feel extremely precise, I don't suffer from arm pump unless the descents are over 10+ continuous minutes long. With the Ergon GE1 Slim grips installed, I cut the PNWs to 780mm because that is a sensible width for a person of my stature. When I took the PNWs off to install the Eras I noticed that I actually did not cut the bars down at all; now I had full 800mm bars plus the 5 or so more millimetres to round up to 810mm. What had I done?
35mm rise PNW bars and 40mm Raceface Eras are well-matched in geometry.
I've had test bikes come through the house with 760mm bars that were fine but the bars on the Orbea always felt spot on. With a rare graze or two against an innocent tree, the 800s did not cause any real trail clearance issues. The feedback and steering precision was excellent too. The flex I liked in the PNW alloy bars was obviously related to running them at their widest setting. Would I still like them if I cut them to 780 or narrower? I first left the ERA bars full width to compare to what I was used to.
The flex and comfort were on par with the alloy PNW bars. The trail chatter was muted and oscillations were controlled throughout the ride. The 40mm Era bars were a carbon replacement to the PNWs I loved and enjoyed. It was time to swap the grips and cut the Eras down to 780mm.
Green lettering blends with the local greenery, but not much else...
I replaced the plastic bar-end that came with the grips with this Pro pair that I had laying around.
Ergon GD1 grips are among my favourites right now.
Ergon GD1 Evo Slim Grips
A new set of grips from Ergon also arrived in time for this handlebar test. The elbow-adjusting shape of the GE1s was excellent for years for me. The grips use integrated bar ends for a clean look and wing-like tips that you can adjust for to suit your elbows' position. The new GD1s are simpler in shape. Mostly round in overall shape, they taper out to a thicker end the further you move from the single clamp that holds them onto the bars. They stick out far less than the GE1s they replaced. This new shape means the usable and effective width measurement of your bars does not increase as much as with the GE1s.
Ergon GD1s measure 30mm in diameter on the clamp side and 32mm on the bar end side with my calipers. This is an ideal diameter for me. There is also a thicker version that measures 32-34mm for bigger hands or people who want more grip material in their palms.
Silk-screened cut marks can be off on any bar... take your own measurements, twice if possible.
For some reason I keep the cut off pieces from my bars and steerer tubes for a little while. I use the steerers for bearing punches sometimes and the bar ends on these ERA bars to show you something interesting. Raceface conveniently printed out cutting marks on the Eras. I measured them before cutting and they came in as advertised 800mm. I taped them at the 780mm mark and ran a fresh blade on the handsaw; after I made the second cut I realized the marks were silk-screened askew. I just cut slightly more material from one end of the bar. It is just a few millimetres and will be completely unnoticeable on the trail but this was a lesson to measure the bars from the edge and then mark your cutting line rather than blindly following possibly incorrect markings.
780mm wide Raceface ERA bars on a 170mm travel bike.
I was not a huge fan of how stiff the RaceFace Next R bars were on bikes I tested in the past. I couldn't get used to my hands getting beaten up. The Era seems to have addressed the hand pain and arm pump issues with optimized carbon layups for different widths and rises. While you may be in the 'no carbon bars' camp, the tuneability of the material lends itself to potentially excellent ride quality as the Era demonstrates. Be diligent in checking your handlebars for scratches and bruises (soft spots from impacts). When well taken care of, there should be many years of service from a pair of carbon handlebars. Pick for strength or comfort and run them with proper torque on the brake lever clamps and stem.
These bars are here to stay for a while.
Race Face Era bars cut to 780mm still offered excellent damping characteristics and precise steering to the bike I was already used to. While I don't love the idea of running carbon bars on big bikes that I tend to crash on occasionally, I have no doubts about the integrity of the Eras. The non-fatiguing nature of carbon puts my mind at ease and as long as I don't over torque the clamps on the brake levers, I have no fear of running these bars for a few years. While my desire to go back to the NSB Overlord Stem and PNW bars is purely aesthetic, the Race Face Era bars and turbine stem are a good looking combo. The green print version I got for testing don't easily match most colour palettes on the market but there are other colour options that look really good.
5'8"
162lbs
Playful, lively riding style
Photographer and Story Teller
Lenticular Aesthetician
Comments
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
I for one applaud Race Face for these bars. All the other "compliant" bars come in one width and one flex. To me, at 144 pounds, is nonsense. An 800 mm bar that is compliant for a 200 pound rider will be a rigid stick for me at 740 mm wide. This is a good start in my mind for actual compliant bars for all. Make them 31.8 and I’ll be happy.
And provide some comparative test results between various bars. We are all susceptible to the confirmation bias fed by marketing and our desire to sense whatever it is that is being sold.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
Agreed, but the place the hangups happen is in the testing - whether it's an assortment of brands (good luck getting them to agree to one standard), media, or a regulatory body, it's really hard to come up with test methodology everyone thinks represents the intended result.
One brand offered to show us how they built a really quick and easy bar flex testing jig where you hang weights off the end and measure deflection. But...so what? Now we know one bar flexes more on the end when you hang a certain amount of weight off of it vs another. That won't necessarily translate to ride feel, or performance, or durability. We could do that test for a bunch of bars and present it to you all but it would be in bad faith - I don't think any of us could claim that'll translate to consistent data. We could measure it and then ride test it back to back and present that - it might get us further down the road but now we're trying to correlate objective and subjective data and HOO BOY is that ever a tough sell (for good reason).
I'm not saying we shouldn't all expect better, I'm just saying it's simplistic to ask for weight ranges or deflection measurements. It's way more complicated than that. I know that's not the answer anyone wants.
Reply
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
It wouldn’t be that hard to provide weight recommendations. In cross country skiing you select a race level ski by your weight and the flex characteristics that suit your style. In any given length a skate ski will come in hard medium and soft flex. Plus a good shop will flex test each ski to help a buyer select. Classic skis are similar. I know I prefer a slightly softer ski for better grip. So when I look at the weight range I’ll try and choose a ski where my weight is high in the range.
It’s not impossible to do for bars too.
But selling bars in one length and one flex and claiming they provide compliance for all riders is just wrong.
I did watch a video on another site some time ago where there was an attempt to quantify flex using weights attached to one end to measure static flex. It offered a comparison of sorts but as you say there’s more to it than pure flex.
Reply
Timer
10 months ago
In this case measuring static flex would be very helpful to find out if the marketing claims have some physical characteristics to back them up.
Actually showing different amounts of flex for a 780mm out-of-the-box Era bar and one cut to 780 from 800mm should be quite informative.
PS: Maybe i'm just in a sceptical mood today. But i find the whole idea of making a 35mm clamp bar and then trying to somehow engineer some flex into it uneccessarily convoluted.
Reply
Andy Eunson
9 months, 4 weeks ago
Thinking about this when reading a tire review. We get all kinds of information about tires such as casing construction, durometer and tread pattern. Tire manufacturers advise which tire is for which purpose and condition. Certainly bar manufacturers can do something similar.
Reply
Carlos Matutes
10 months ago
Am I gonna be this guy? Yeah, I guess I am- 3 different widths at 3 different rises makes 9 configurations, not 6.
With 6 available colo(u)rs, that make 54 SKUs. Good grief.
Reply
Jotegir
10 months ago
Don't forget they make them in Aluminum with the Turbine too. And the Turbine gets a whopping 7 colours.
Reply
Deniz Merdano
10 months ago
Obviously you are better at math than I am.. Good catch.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
What that points to if I'm reading between the lines is that it's a F-ton of SKUs...but digging deeper it also tells me that RF is planning on (or already received) a TON of OE spec for these new bars, partly based on offering so many SKUs.
Reply
Bryce Borlick
9 months, 4 weeks ago
The colours are kinda silly. But hey, if orange is 50% off cuz they’re overstocked, I’ll take em.
Reply
Perry Schebel
9 months, 3 weeks ago
SO many sku's. one-up is smart - one black bar, with (if you absolutely must color match your graphics) optional colored decal kits.
Reply
Kos
10 months ago
Some good thoughts to ponder, Deniz, but for me, wider bars just position my aging wrists less ergonomically and I'll never go back to lock-on grips after revelling in the extra cush of push-on silicone handles.
Rock on!
Reply
Christian Strachan
10 months ago
I’m in a similar situation with aging wrists, and loved things after trying out some ritchey foamies, then I hit my first real descent, and the hand/arm pump I got was ridiculous. Trying out GE1 slims and they’ve been good, think I just think I’ll only be able to use foamies for touring/light trail.
Reply
Deniz Merdano
10 months ago
As someone aging who has broken their wrist twice I am super sensitive to grip comfort. Wide bars work well for me and currently GD1 , ODI Elite Pro, Odi Longneck lock on and Santa Cruz grips work really well. You couldn't pay me to mess with slip on and wire down grips.
Reply
ohio
10 months ago
I'm in the same boat... 4 surgeries on my left wrist and also 5'8" and 160ish lbs. Have tried foamies from ESI and Wolftooth, have gone back to Ergon GA3 smalls on an SQ Lab 12deg bar. At my shoulder width and after doing some pushup tests, I've actually gone to a narrower bar. Running 740mm including grip width.
Reply
Brad Sedola
10 months ago
I made it through 3 rides on the stock 800mm bars/40mm stem on my new Norco Optic before robbing the Ergon GA3s and SQ Lab 16° bars off my old bike. Certainly give up some stiffness and steering precision, but it is a trail bike after all. I'm not shooting Rampage lines.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
I've got some SQ Lab grips I think you should try, Deniz.
Reply
rolly
9 months, 4 weeks ago
I love my SQ Lab grips, but I also really liked my Ergons too.
As for bar width, I run mine at 760 or 770. I don't find the need for greater leverage on my 180 travel fork. I do, however, feel very uncomfortable with wider bars.
Reply
Lynx .
10 months ago
OK, barely got through the marketing BS and had to come and make this comment.....they're tuned for each specific rise and width, Goldilocks feel, but for what weight rider, because come on man, bigger riders will flex shit way easier than lighter ones. So PLEASE stop with the marketing BS, PLEASE, unless you're also going to offer various layups for specific rider weight ranges.
Another comment for you Deniz, if you like those grips because they taper and put your grip in a better position, maybe it's time you try a bigger sweep bar, something in the 11-16 degree range. Since I got my SQ Lab 16 degree sweep bar, I find it hard to ride anything under 11 degrees, even modified/widened a narrower 11 degree Salsa bar I had to replace the Funn FATBOY bar I have been using for years on the FS because of it.
Reply
Jotegir
10 months ago
If you're a heavy boy and you want a stiffer bar in a narrower width, the solution seems pretty simple: get a wider one and cut it.
Now on the other hand, if youre a light rider and want a compliant wide bar? More complicated.
They really ought to publish weight ranges however.
Reply
[user profile deleted]
10 months ago
This comment has been removed.
Lynx .
10 months ago (below threshold) log in to show
What's an avg rider these days? To me the avg guy should be 5'10 and 160-175lbs, but in reality, it's more like 5'10, 190-210lbs, so if that's your avg, that's way above what I consider avg. WTF is "average" terrain Tashi, please oh please tell me that one? For most who live on "The Shore" they think it's all like that, where in reality, most don't have even close to the steep, or tehc/jank etc that the Shore has, most are lucky to even have anything that would be considered a true mountain.
Again, use your NUMBERs ;-)
Reply
[user profile deleted]
10 months ago
This comment has been removed.
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
You just debunked your own argument about weight ranges, Lynx. Because it's not just about weight, is it? It's weight, strength, riding aggression, terrain, bike position, etc...
Reply
Timer
10 months ago
I'm not convinced that manufacturers even know the rider population well enough to calculate a sensible average weight. Without even going into "average terrain", whatever that may be.
Adjusting personal expectations is of course the way to go. We could do that before. Just go up or down the disciplines. A light rider could use a XC bar for trail riding, to get more compliance. While a very large guy could use a DH bar for enduro.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
You're underestimating the ability of manufacturers to collect and use data.
1. Sales figures of all kinds of things including bikes, components and apparel (by RF, their other brands, and data they can acquire about the bike market which is used by all brands to forecast sales, sizes, etc)
2. When you navigate to Fox Racing to check recommended suspension pressures, they're gathering that data. Fox owns RF. Easy peasy.
3. Biometrics. Average NA male and female at this height is probably choosing this width bar, ok let's tune for the avg weight of an active person in that category.
The interesting thing overall to me is that RF has taken a leap and the reaction of some is that that leap was worse than the status quo. But it's also clear that the dissenters weren't satisfied with a BIT more info or customization, almost like they prefer more or nothing.
And I'll say again that static deflection measurements do not translate to on trail performance or comfort. That's like saying that pushing down once on a fork will tell you how it'll perform in a rock garden. It's a red herring.
Reply
handsomedan
10 months ago
It would be nice if someone collected data on wrist backsweep angles.
A neutral wrist can vary greatly from 8 to 20 degrees. If you don’t have the correct backsweep you’ll be riding with your wrist in radial deviation. This might not be a problem when you’re young, but it sure becomes one as you get older if you keep riding.
Reply
Mark
10 months ago
I think backsweep is far less important that rotation at the wrist. With the correct amount of “down sweep”, backsweep almost becomes irrelevant. Backsweep is the attempted solution for a different issue.
taprider
10 months ago
@Mark
tell me more about roll/down sweep
after getting ulnar tunnel syndrome, I have rolled my bars to have down sweep (opposite of what the cool bros do) to take pressure off the ulnar nerves
problem is that depending on what I'm doing (uphill tech trials vs downhill drops and steep rolls vs seated climbing vs seated aero as possible into a headwind) my preferred angles, backsweep and roll changes
Reply
Mark
10 months ago
@taprider
It's an area of discussion with a lot of variables at play, mostly because riding position is highly dynamic and we are constantly moving around on the bike. That said, there are positions we tend to spend a lot of time in, such as when climbing for example. The wrist goes through 4 basics movements, and you can see this when standing up with your palms facing behind you and moving only at the wrist.
1. Extension - lift the back of your hand upwards, towards ceiling
2. Flexion - lifts palms upwards, towards the ceiling
3. Adduction - thumbs turn inwards, towards each other
4. Abduction - pinky fingers turn outwards, away from each other
5. Note that there is a very limited amount of rotation at the wrist joint itself and that rotation of wrist/hand mainly happens at the elbow via the radius and ulnar bones.
Of course there can also be combinations of flexion/extension and adduction/abduction. Generally a neutral wrist is when there no flexion, extension, adduction or abduction. Also our hand spacing is mainly a function of shoulder width and movement at the shoulder. These things can vary though depending on how someone is built or what their typical day to day movements are like; for example having a repetitive job that "trains" your muscles to hold your body in a certain manner. Think about how people with desk jobs or who spend a lot of time on a computer/phone tend to have poor back/neck posture from their heads being poked forward all the time. So ideally, we want to put ourselves in a neutral wrist position most of the time as this is not only easiest on the joint, but it also allows for the greatest range of movement.
Now taking all that into consideration, optimum bar/grip width for most people is going to be about shoulder width, with a small amount of backsweep to account for the neutral position of the hand/wrist tending to not be perfectly straight if you drew a line between your two palms. As I mentioned before, Too much backsweep and you start to add abduction (I called it external rotation earlier for simplicity) to the wrist which is going to put strain on the wrist joint. What we really need is for the ends of the bar to slope down slightly to match the neutral position of the wrist/hand which has a slight amount of external rotation. You've discovered this in changing the position of you bar in your stem and rolling it so the ends of the bar slope down.
To address your question, your ulnar tunnel syndrome could have been affected/introduced by your bar position which may have put your wrists into excessive abduction for your wrist structure. For other people it might not be as much of an in issue. I've had some wrist issues myself, slight pain in the joint, and I went the unthinking route of simply trying more backsweep. While it helped slightly in some respects, it made things worse in other. When I actually thought about it and put my Kinesiology education into action I realized what was going on. In the gym, I coach people about making adjustments at the wrist with how they grasp the bar to alleviate wrist pain in the same manner on a fairly regular basis.
Hope that helps!
Reply
Lynx .
9 months, 4 weeks ago
The SQ Lab bars all have this slight downward "tilt", if you set them up exactly as SQ Lab says they should be, for me however, it doesn't work, feels really weird in technical stuff, doesn't seem to give the control/power needed, I tend to roll the bar forward so I have more actual upsweep, maybe because I still run my saddle quite a bit higher than my bars, but whatever, the 16 degree SQ bar changed my thinking on sweep and I have a hard time using a bar under 11 degrees.
I find that this setup gives the best compromise for long times spent seated and pedaling on flat/flowy, as well as climbing and descending and my wrists definitely prefer it.
TheJankFiles
9 months, 3 weeks ago
No way I could ride a bar with the tips of the grips pointed down. Last thing I want is to blow a hand off in the wet on a heavy landing.
OneUp carbon bar had me chasing fork settings from all the flex. Changed back to alloy 31.8 bars and original fork settings and all the weird pogo sensations went away.
Shinook
3 weeks ago
I just saw this, realize I'm late to the party. I've suffered from ulnar nerve compression for years, it's hampered my riding to the point that I quit entirely a year ago, then started back with the mentality I can only ride flow trails, my days riding rougher/enduro/dh terrain are over. Even with that, I have to stop several times on extended downhills due to pain from neuropathy.
It's worth considering that, in some cases, surgery just may be required. In my case, the nerve was badly compressed in both elbows and damaged, but conduction studies and therapy only showed marginal damage. I tried YEARS of PT with 4 PTs, I had several conduction studies done, etc and nothing helped until it degraded to the point I almost couldn't use my hand any more. Riding aggravated it the most but it started to get bad in daily life. I had one surgeon outright dismiss this, tell me to wear padded gloves, and that was it. It wasn't until I found someone 6 years later who listened to what I was saying and was willing to hear me out that something got done and stopped the damage.
I also had several bike fits done, tried numerous grip options, bars, suspension components, and brakes. The bike fits helped a lot and, as it relates to bar choice, you should consider things like backsweep, upsweep, rise, width, grip diameter, and brake lever position as it relates to where and how pressure is put on your hand. Try to feel when you ride where tension is, especially in your shoulders, hands, and lower back.
I found brake lever positioning in particular made a huge difference in how pressure was applied to the bar, too far outward (forcing your finger to reach out) and it seemed to force rotation of my hand inward toward the stem, closer towards the bar put more balanced pressure on the bars.
On handlebars, I found more backsweep aggravated my issues severely. I couldn't finish a 2 mile downhill I've done >300 times without stopping every 100ft, I eventually had to walk out with 12 degree SQLab bars it was so painful and I was borderline unable to control the bike. I know others they helped a lot, so YMMV. The best bars I've used for my issues are those with more moderate sweep angles, Renthal's 7 degrees being best esp when combined with higher rise. The rise seems to help me relax my shoulders a bit. I usually end up finding it's more comfortable to roll the bars forward (towards the fork) compared to the more neutral positions with the backsweep pointed rearward. Again, YMMV - this depends heavily on your issues and the bikes geo. There are a lot of variables.
I also found longer bikes - like a Geometron G1 - helped a lot. Being stretched out with longer chainstays and more stable geo reduced the amount of up/down pumping my arms had to do, which helped with comfort a lot.
Finally, brakes make a massive difference. I found brakes with a lot of power (Maven, Intend, Hope) make a huge difference in how my hands feel. If I'm fighting for power with the brake lever, then that's more pressure exerted on the bars and more tension in my hand. The ability to lightly pressure the brake lever allows reduction in clenching your hand and improves comfort a lot.
There's a lot that goes into this and it helps to have someone that knows what to look for evaluate if there are places you can find relief, I could talk about it for ages - but that's a summary of a few things I don't hear folks talk about much. Good luck. It sucks.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
You may need a reality check, Lynx. Not all marketing is shady or dishonest. Deniz is relaying RF's design and terminology notes - that's just part of the review - he's not telling you RF has reinvented the bar. You also need to recognize progress when you see it. RF's GL tune extends to the Turbine - their new alloy bar - and the custom butting and shaping they're using to tune ride feel is the same thing steel and alloy frame builders have used for decades to tune ride quality of frames. Not marketing bullshit, it's tried and true material design and construction being used to make their bars more comfortable. Marketing just helps them communicate it to the market. You may have a fair comment in asking for weight ranges, however weight is only one metric and not even the most critical one for every rider.
Are you holding all other bar manufacturers to this same standard? OneUp, We Are One, PNW and many more are designing compliance into their bars and getting a lot of acclaim - deservedly so because their bars feel good. None of them state their bars are tuned for a particular rider's weight. Are you holding them to the same standard? Even if they did, there would be all sorts of people asking if the 150-lb rider they had in mind for their 780 x 20mm rise bar was an aggressive rider on an XC/Trail bike or an 'average' rider on an Enduro bike...and does that rider prefer the stiffer or softer side of compliance? At some point, RF's designers will have decided what tune they were after and I have no idea where they landed, but we can all safely assume the 800 x 20mm bar is stiffer than the 780 and 760 because the average rider on 800mm bar is larger than the average rider on a 760, keeping in mind this is a heavy duty trail/enduro bar.
Race Face has stolen a march on all of them anyway - this is a level of specificity of bar tuning we haven't yet seen. I'm not saying there isn't further refinement available here for RF or any other brand to pursue, but it is a step forward. To demand even further splintering of SKUs than RF have already laid out here just means higher prices. I don't recall you or anyone else commenting about how cheap carbon handlebars were getting these days, so pick your poison: are you in the market for a $350 bar tuned for your weight, bike, geo/body position, ride style, and preference, or is today's $210 RF Era bar better than the one you could buy yesterday?
Five years ago, we were all clamoring for brands to please just include wide bars with all bikes so we could decide where they should be cut. Obviously we know that an 800 cut to 770 is going to feel stiffer at the shorter length, but at least more riders would have suitable dimensions from their OE bar. In the aftermarket the needs are a bit different and we can all agree that 35mm bars - esp carbon ones - got too stiff there for a while (esp so in RF's case in the past) but we're seeing progress here now. Let's take a breath and appreciate that before going straight for the pitchforks.
Reply
Jotegir
10 months ago
> "he's not telling you RF has reinvented the bar"
Remember when Trek said they were releasing "cycling's biggest invention since full suspension" or some other massive, wild claim, and then when it came out it was an expensive, heavy helmet that was rated mid-pack in the Virginia tech helmet rankings?
Raceface hasn't done that here. I agree with Lynx in the sense that it would be nice to see a bit more info on the flex/weight/width/aggression relationship within existing SKUs but I'm not ready to get the crucifix out for this one.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
Again, though, what are you going to do with that info? You're still relying on what RF would be telling you is recommended for a given rider's weight, bike, ride style, etc. I don't think it puts you any further (farther? fuck, gotta check) down the road to comprehension. Before today, you're buying a bar without any of that information and without any tuning based on rise or width. As of today, you know there's some tuning in there. You're still relying on RF to get that right and of course it won't be 'perfect' for everyone, but whose bar is?
I'm not so much staunchly defending RF here as I am asking you critics to be measured. You ought to expect to be held to a higher standard than commenters elsewhere - it's the rep you've built for yourselves.
It's easy to take pot shots from the sidelines, but hold your arguments to a higher standard. I recently listened to a debate on a contentious topic and a guy on one side said that his role was to consider his opponent's POV with a 'steel man's' position - ie. make your opposition's argument as strong as possible (give benefits of the doubt, debate in good faith) - not the weakest aka straw man version.
I mean, sure, I get where the desire for the info comes from but let's be realistic about what we're asking for here and how most/any of us would actually be able to use that info. I smell a chorus of 'it's never good enough and I'm nitpicking progress rather than praising it'.
By definition any info RF releases on flex is going to be met with 'but what does a flex level of 1 mean vs 2 or 3'?
I do think it's fair to request some form of measurability, but I think it's ridiculous for that to overshadow the tone of what's happening here in general.
Reply
Jotegir
10 months ago
I think perhaps my comments being nest-egged under (and somewhat supportive of) Lynx's are perhaps giving them a more critical tone than I intended. So I think it's worthwhile for me to take a step back and then do a deeper dive here with the whole "there should be more info" type statement.
Raceface has released multiple bars at multiple widths, with multiple rises, made out of multiple materials, and each with a different flex profile within those other factors. They did so at a time when industry leaders like Trek have John Burke coming out and saying that in a time of industry contraction, Trek is going to reduce their SKU count by 40% over two years. Hell, they're about to full-on nuke (or already did, I can't keep track) Bontrager apparel.
Meanwhile, Raceface releases these things which turns a relatively tight SKU list into a ticker-tape parade. It is clear that Raceface thought this, and all of the increased development, distribution, and retail costs, was worth it. They aren't even particularly more expensive, it appears to be coming out of Raceface (or, not knowing the markup, the retailer's) margin.
Raceface has a reputation in the industry that lends a certain level of credibility with the enthusiast level MTB consumer. They're earned it. They also must have done an amount of internal testing before releasing these things. So when they do something like this, there simply must be something to it.
This is an industry leading, novel release. That really doesn't happen that often. They had the opportunity to accompany it with a second industry leading, novel release by creating something akin to Norco's Ride Aligned, but instead of for bike setup, for bar selection. If there's a spectrum where material choice, width, and stiffness can all be optimized for rider height, weight, and riding style, they could release information that would help guide consumers in a particular direction. Do they need to full-on make a tool like Ride Aligned? They'd have to make that assessment internally, but if such optimizations are possible, I'd love to see them embrace that aspect of it in some regard.
So to answer "what will I do with that info"? Pick the bar that's best for me. Of course I'll be relying on what they tell me. The last few times I set up a Norco for myself I jumped on Ride Aligned and it was like 90% there every time. And I was relying on Norco to get me to that 90%. So maybe I'm not after specific measurability but some guidance along the spectrum they've created. Because cutting these things is still possible, and cutting the wider bar down to the same length as a narrower bar is going to yield a different profile. Maybe they could take it one step further and help us out with who that other profile is for.
Instead we're left with goldilocks. If the 'spectrum' as described above is true, them goldilocks doesn't cut it*. And hey, maybe the truth is actually closer to goldilocks. Maybe their internal testing revealed that at a given width and material, a certain flex characteristic will work best for pretty much everybody independent of rider weight and riding style. Pick up your preferred width and material and have at it. If that's the case, tell us about it! Don't just call it a 'goldilocks' bar and move on! Tell us what you did and the conclusion that was reached. Because this is novel, you have us egg-head type consumer nerds desiring more. This is genuinely interesting and there's an opportunity here to take it to the next level.
*there's a joke here about how they made goldilocks tunes to avoid cutting bars.
Take me for example. I'm 210 lbs, 6' 2", pretty aggressive, and run 760mm bars on every single flat bar bike. Let's say I'm picking up either the Era or Turbine, in 40mm rise, for my Instinct. I'd like some guidance from Raceface on whether I, preferring a stock size they make, should grab the 760mm bars, or being big and strong I should cut one of the 780s or 800s down to size. How do I know that I'm not going to have an objectively worse experience by grabbing the 800 and cutting it? Is a cut 780 the double goldilocks?? Or is the stock 760 just better all round? Help me out here Raceface!
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
K, that was all really well said, of course. And I think you nailed the point home in the last paragraph. I also think RF would say 'pick your width, we've done the thinking for you' and tuned each width/rise according to what their data is telling them - they did go so far as that, actually, however weren't leaning too hard into data/biometrics, etc, for whatever reason. BUT that's speculation and I am making inquiries so we can get a little more detail out of RF about this - stay tuned.
As a 6'2 guy that needs a stiffer bar at 760, though, you are presenting a bit of an outlier case. Still, RF should look at that, and what you wrote, and figure out a way to put your doubts to rest. It's not as simple as recommended weight categories, and that's not what you're asking for - fair enough.
rolly
9 months, 4 weeks ago
Interesting that you mention Norco's Ride Align system. A buddy and I were just talking about how good it is yesterday (he was remarking how off his suspension settings were from Santa Cruz's website). I find it interesting that other companies can't seem to replicate what Norco has done, afaik.
Then there's Niner. I love my WFO but, good glory, their website's info on recommended settings or anything tech related is absolutely terrible.
Lynx .
10 months ago (below threshold) log in to show
Bit defensive there Pete aren't we. I hold ALL brands to not put forth marketing BS like Goldilocks feel and/or best compliance etc without giving actual details of how they test it, I studied marketing, my BS meter is quite tuned for it and the buzz words of BS. I call BS whenever I see it, I'm just so sick and tired of it, just give honest fvcking info for people to make decisions by, especially on something like a bar that can have "adverse" health effects if it turns out to be just a "tad" too flexy for you and break etc., also to the other side where a way too stiff bar can cause serious damage to lighter riders.
If you're going to say your bars are "tuned" per width, then give some numbers, like "With a 200lb weight hanging off the end, at 800mm wide, the bar deflects 5mm, at 760mm the bar deflects only 3mm or something to those effects to give an idea of how one compares to the other. As has been said, not hard to do such a simple test and give the numbers so people have an idea.
Oh and you're absolutely right Pete, not ALL marketing is shaddy and dishonest, there was the honest stuff from Buckley's, it really did taste disgusting and it really did work :skep:
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
"If you're going to say your bars are "tuned" per width, then give some numbers, like "With a 200lb weight hanging off the end, at 800mm wide, the bar deflects 5mm, at 760mm the bar deflects only 3mm or something to those effects to give an idea of how one compares to the other. As has been said, not hard to do such a simple test and give the numbers so people have an idea."
That will do nothing for your comprehension of how that bar feels or rides. All you'll know is that one deflects slightly more with a weight hung off the end of it. That's a static environment, riding is dynamic.
Brag about your BS meter all you want. I'm not being defensive, I'm just showing you a mirror.
Reply
Mark
10 months ago
Maybe the solution then is that if component companies are going to charge $200 or more for a bar they they have a tester program available where people can try out a recommended bar based on weight and riding style. This of course means dozens of bars for any one model to accommodate width and flex. The other part is that we as consumers have to recognize that we're trying to milk every last little bit of "perfection" out of a part and that costs money so maybe we have to put up with a little marketing schtick as well.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
I definitely support this idea. Ditto for saddles, flat pedals and even wheels and tires.
Is that a lot of work and expense? Yes. Could a brand sell a lot of parts as a result of a successful demo program? Hell yes.
Lynx .
10 months ago
It was an EXAMPLE, as in provide some data that shows the difference or "tune", don't just throw out what could be very meaningful word with absolutely no context for anyone to even begin to go by. So one could be just the static deflection test, another could be on a testing jig, using data collected from a run down Fort William WC track, by "X" rider and then figuring out a way to give some numbers from that, so that I, as a rider can at least have a place to start looking between all the options you offer.
As to pushing on a fork won't tell you how it'll ride, well, no it won't tell you how it's dampening, rebound etc will react, but it WILL give you an idea of if maybe you're starting off in the right ball park, or at least for me it sure as hell does, none of the info from RF does this for me for their bars.
Reply
Kos
10 months ago
Well I'm not a German mtb magazine, but I have ridden both the OneUp bars and the new Race Face Era bars on my firm and fast as hell race whip.
The Race Faces came at 760 and I cut down the OneUps to 760.
The RF bars offer more compliance and remain on the bike after two back-and-forth shootouts.
And trust me, I've got the left hand to qualify as Best Test Bed In the Universe.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
Interesting! Thanks for sharing that.
Reply
Frorider
10 months ago
German bike magazines often actually measure things like fork stiffness, handlebar compliance etc to see how the numbers correlate with field observations. One of my older model RaceFace carbon bars was actually measured as being as compliant as a heavily marketed ‘compliant’ bar (OneUp I think). Anyway my point here is to once again encourage NA bike reviewers to obtain lab measurements of the easily measured things like this to help cut through the marketing fog.
Reply
Perry Schebel
10 months ago
good point. setting up a bar deflection measuring jig would be pretty easy, and one could generate some interesting & useful data (comparing different bars as well as hanging weights at different positions to see the effect of trimming to shorter lengths).
Reply
Deniz Merdano
10 months ago
Please either of you make and provide me with a said jig. I will happily test all the bars within my reach... I thought about making something to test the bars on the bike, but you know, it's summer and there are literally million other projects that need working on...
Reply
Perry Schebel
10 months ago
yeah, momentarily mulled the logistics of such a project, but the enthusiasm quickly waned. i'm not really sensitive enough to relative bar stiffness to care *that* much. shrug.
Reply
RNAYEL
10 months ago
This could be a good mid-November project once the rain sets in and all I want to do is hide from my kids in the garage, kind of thing.
Reply
Jerry Willows
10 months ago
great time to fix up the trails!
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
Testing is a really complicated arena. In the past, a lot of German magazines were using certain brands' in-house test rigs to test things like bars and stems. So instead of having test results that seemed as unbiased as possible, they were (unwittingly but hilariously) producing results that favoured those brands' products because the test rigs were proprietary. Even better, that brand was often German and would be declared the 'Test Sieger'. I know this first hand, by the way. So, let's just keep that salt shaker in hand because we're going to need a lot more grains of it if we're going to invoke German mag objectivity. I love the idea and intention of independent testing and I'm not saying it's all bad or biased or useless, but you're getting hit with marketing there, too, on the part of the so-called impartial magazines.
Do a little digging sometime into who 'owns' most awards organizations...it's often media outlets. I won't point fingers but you don't have to dig too deep to find a rather glaring example of this among a multi-disciplinary cycling media company in Europe. Oh, by the way, they charge brands to include them in their 'evaluations'.
Most standardized testing that is regulated by CE and other bodies, whether it's for bar strength and durability, helmet safety, etc, are deeply flawed* and most brands will tell you they create their own test parameters as a result. I'm not going to get into it here but be very wary of whose empirical testing you rely on or trust. Sure, we could create a test rig for bar stiffness and report on the results, but do weights hung from the ends of a bar and measured deflection tell you much about how they'll feel on the bike? (Nope.)
*if it's deeply flawed, why is it used or approved? Well, regulatory bodies need some kind of testing standards, and we can agree it would be impossible for all industry brands to agree on what those would be, so there's usually a bit of a stalemate. Ultimately, the person in charge of 'bike component test standards' at CE has to come up with parameters. Unfortunately that means things like road bars are tested only based on hundreds of thousands of cycles of regular riding and sprinting with hands in ONE position, which isn't how road bars are used (this is only one example of how insufficient standardized testing can be).
Reply
ohio
10 months ago
I don't know about standards being deeply flawed. They all give some objective, repeatable information. I think the flaw is in misinterpreting and putting too much weight or breadth to the results. Same for the in-house tests - they are generally sound, but you're right that a company that has been designing to THAT test is probably going to perform best in THAT test, which doesn't encapsulate all aspects of real world performance. But it IS still real data, which is better than none or pure marketing drivel.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
We can disagree on use of deeply but I agree with you that data is useful and interpreting the results is key; but what percentage of consumers do you think this impacts? Most, right? What percentage do you think would be surprised to know the fancy badges inside their helmet or on the box of their handlebar represented testing that - in real world conditions - is so far from actual use conditions that every brand tests to at least 2x the durability standards and also designs their own test jigs that they feel represent better real world durability/performance/safety conditions?
Reply
Niels van Kampenhout
10 months ago
I grew up with German bike mags and their lab tests and have mixed feelings about them. While in theory they can add useful data to corroborate subjective observations, they often aren't representative of actual usage on the trail and take a single metric out of context, adding a veneer of objectivity where in reality they only add noise.
I sometimes had a suspicion that certain brands designed their products to win the lab tests rather than to perform well on the trail.
Reply
Mark
10 months ago
The ultimate bar has yet to be made. I'll bet that for most people if they stick their hands out in front of them (sitting or standing) in an handlebar grip position they should notice that their palms do not sit flat, but instead sit at a slight angle below horizontal. Most bars don't really account for this and I'd posit that this is where a lot of wrist and elbow pain comes from for riders. The reason I include elbow pain is that if you have your hands in that handlebar position and turn them more horizontal to accommodate typical bar position you'll notice that the elbows come up and flare out a little bit. This is one of those mysteries of bike design where I wonder why bike companies don't have people with biomechanics expertise on their staff to accommodate for these sorts of things.
I'll also throw in the usual comment that the effort/time required to put into a strength training routine is fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the payback in improved riding performance and overall lifestyle improvements as well.
Reply
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
Maybe manufacturers could have a flex index like ski boots. That said ski boot flex differs quite a bit between manufacturers as well as whether or not it’s a race boot versus touring boot. But it is a way to choose boots. Not perfect but it gives one an idea how stiff or soft a boot might be. If a boot is 90 flex for example that is way too soft for me. I have old wool socks that have more structure than that. A 150 plug boot will be too much for my light weight.
At the end of the day though it’s just a frickin’ handlebar. A bar is only one small part of a whole bunch of springs and levers absorbing stuff. Tires, forks, grips, arms and legs. Even grips.
Reply
Tehllama42
10 months ago
This is absolutely something I would like. As a large rider who prefers compliance, the 'high flex index' option at 820mm that is somewhat obviously intended to be cut down to the 780mm range is actually what I would run (at full length), because it would be basically perfect for my riding and what I do.
Reply
Blofeld
10 months ago
Do we love numbers or do we hate numbers? If marketing suggested I get a goldilocks spring rate for my shock I’d probably never buy that company’s product again. On the other hand, I never torque lever clamps anywhere close to the spec in the manual; hand forces are inline with the bar which prevents rotation while braking and I’d much rather have rotation at the clamp than a broken lever or master cylinder in a crash.
Reply
Deniz Merdano
10 months ago
I do agree that the Goldilocks terminology is a little cringey. But i am failing to come up with a one word replacement that gets the point across that RF has done the research and decided on a tune that works for MOST riders.
And i too only torque my lever clamps down to 3-4Nm to allow for rotation on a crash. Mostly because i use shimano XT levers that are made of soft butter
Reply
Blofeld
10 months ago
I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but Faction Bike Studio has published a test of handlebar stiffnesses. It seems like it would be pretty straight forward to put a lb/in stiffness on a handlebar. They could even print the stiffness ratings on slanted instead of cut lines.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
10 months ago
If you mean the one they did in conjunction with bike rumor, I just checked it out. OneUp's carbon bar is in the top 30th percentile of stiffest bars, but also their favourite, partly for ride compliance. So, yet again, testing static deflection and calling it compliance did not exactly correlate with real world riding comfort.
I don't dispute their conclusion - I love OneUp's carbon bar, it may be my fave - but you'd never pick it out from their stiffness chart and conclude it's going to be one of the most compliant in real world use. So, fun that they did it, but not overly useful data if measuring ride feel was the goal.
Reply
Blofeld
10 months ago
I agree that a static stiffness test isn’t the be all/end all for handlebars. However, I think it could be a nice baseline to quantify performance if it could be standardized just a bit. I guess I’m just not interested in taking an “ignorance is strength” view on this type of thing.
What I thought was most interesting about the Faction testing was the Chromag bar comparison. The carbon 35mm was less stiff than the Al 31.8mm. Definitely counter intuitive!
Reply
jhtopilko
10 months ago
I'm happy cutting all my bars to 760 and I like the idea of tailoring stiffness to width. Whether these bars are better for me than the Renthal bars I use will be a question at replacement time. I haven't had any stiffness or bending concerns. There isn't much useful information around for making a different bar choice other than wrist comfort when we test ride a bike.
Reply
XXX_er
10 months ago
I'm an insensitive mofo with wide shoulders so i just ride whatever came on the bike and right now thats 800mm
Reply
Dave Smith
10 months ago
As someone who has been writing/designing/producing ads for about 30 years, I love how marketing/advertising is the new devil in every comment field. I do agree that the choice of language that a variety of brands use across the bike industry is weak - But there's only so many ways to say "ride feel". I don't wholly blame the poor writer who has to scribe that gunk but in my experience product leads and brand managers tend to hate sounding like their competitors. The danger is that message clarity can at times go out the window while seeking a differentiated position using internal brand language.
Also - Marketing is the strategy of bringing products and services to market. Advertising is the creative expression of that strategy.
Reply
handsomedan
10 months ago
Yay for more 8 degree backsweep options - definitely needed some more.
Reply
GB
10 months ago
I believe one has to look as sympathetic harmonic oscillations and then correlate that to harmonic distortions causes by the structure of the devise , your bike , it is attached to.
In Moto GP . Stiffness is not the goal and compliance is needed to handle frequency oscillation harmonics . And tune in stiffness.
Something a tad more complex than weights hanging off of the bars is needed to measure the degree of compliance in relationship to stiffness .
Or I'm just trying to sound smart;)
Reply
Flatted-again
10 months ago
Wasn’t that the idea behind vibrocore?
Reply
GB
10 months ago
I saw a mass tuned damper being tested in head tubes . Still you have the right idea.
So yes .
But a mass tuned damper is a tad more complex . Not certain it's doable in a thin diameter tube .
Reply
Brumos73
9 months, 3 weeks ago
For the same price point, why on earth would anyone choose these bars over OneUp bars? The most comfortable, compliant bars available. I've tried most (Spank Vibracore, Deity carbon, SixC, Santa Cruz, Renthal) and now only run OneUp on all my bikes. Set it and forget it!
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.