Handlebar shapes - just wonderin'

[ZG862]

Having had a general absence from reading the cycling press for, what, 30 years-ish and generally not paying much attention during the time that bikes have virtually halved in weight and number of spokes, I notice that all modern drop bars seem to be much shallower than in the olden days (e.g. Cinelli 66) and seem to commonly favour an angled straight section in the drop section beneath the brakes. At the same time, frames are typically much smaller, placing the bars much lower down than in the days when stems were not just ugly brackets covered in bolts.

Can anyone explain the thinking behind this to me?

 

[OldTel]

Re:

Hi,
shallow drops, small frames, sounds like 1920's to mid 30's . Marketing equals forcing change for change's sake, and there are only limited set of variable's available with a bike, what goes around comes around, just a passing thought on a quiet day. Thanks Terry

 

[Way2many]

Too many 'new' riders complaining of sore neck and backs after riding 30 miles once a week!

 

[SimonJC]

I am not sure if bars have changed much to be honest; however your point about the weight of bikes is totally the opposite of what I believe is the case.
My main summer bike is a Trek OCLV from 1998 (so OK not quite 30 years old but not that far off) and it weighs around 8.5kg, with standard wheels; when set up for hill climbing, it goes down to around 5.5kg, which is remarkable for a 60cm frame!
I do find it funny to look over the specifications of current state of the art wheels fron Enve, Zipp, etc when they describe their wheels as superlight, but to me are actually quite heavy; I have a pair of Lightweights which date from 2000 (the ones Armstrong and Ullrich used) which come in at just over 1kg for the pair.
To be honest I am staggered as to how heavy modern bikes are; I was looking at the specifications of the latest Giant TCR which comes in at over 9kg for the complete bike; and that is without pedals!
I think it could be due to them now having disc brakes which add a good 500g+ to the overall weight, and also the groupsets today, even Dura-Ace, I believe are heavier than they used to be.
I think the steps forward have been in general efficiency and aerodynamics, rather than lightness.

 

[dutchie]

Re:

nice topic....

 

[droppedout]

Modern road bikes typically have a sloping top tube and a long seat post allowing the manufacturer to save weight and costs in materials and fabrication, but most importantly to offer a smaller range of frame sizes.
With these frames the important frame measurement is not a real physical one but rather an imaginary or notional or virtual one where you have to imagine the frame with a top tube parallel to the ground. Not easy.
Just as important the top tube length is now just a cloudy notion, could be anything, as nothing is real any more.
That's how they goose us.

The handlebars have to be compatible with the frames so have to fit most people and have the widest range of adjustment, while causing the minimum complaints.

 

[ZG862]

Thanks for all the thoughts and contributions so far (and Dutchie for those pictures. I do remember the "half bar" taping fad that you used to see on road bikes too for riders that were so fast that they never came off the drops... - or maybe were just saving weight from their bike so they could "onboard" a couple more pints at the pub).

@Simon: It was a bit of a sweeping statement on my part about weight. Anything around 10kg was considered pretty good in the stone age. 5.5kg would have been considered in the realms of fantasy.

Not sure I've seen that "wide range of adjustment" that DroppedOut refers to, other than in the fitment of a very long seat post - which somewhat hides the scaling of a persons general dimensions with height and tends to mean a rider on the shorter end of the fitment gets to carry around a nice long length of useless seat pin. I suppose that there are still different frame sizes being offered for any given model, each with their own stem length and presumably fork tube length but I don't see nowadays the fine analogue range of adjustment that is available with a quill stem. There is some flexibility from repositioning the spacers but it does seem that the typical setup puts the rider much lower down when on the bar tops and also much closer in. I just wondered if this was a result of new thinking about the optimum "race" position - or as has been suggested just a fad designed to induce neck and back ache.

It all seems a bit limiting for everyday riding - although I must say that shape of modern "brifters" (look at me with the fancy words!) is more comfortable than 1980s Campag/Weinmann offerings.