Skip to content

2014 Road Handlebar Review

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • #95533
    Keymaster

    We’ve designated 2014 as the year of testing here at Fair Wheel and this is the 3rd test in the series, road handlebars.  We’ve once again brought back our favorite engineer, Jason Krantz. Jason’s a mechanical engineer whose graduate work focused on the intersection of composite materials and finite element analysis. Jason has worked for several companies in the bicycle industry and never fails to amaze us with the depth of his cycling related knowledge.  He adds real value to all of the tests we perform.

    Disclaimer: A lot of typing and numbers have gone into this article and we apologize in advance for any typos, but would warn that the possibility of mistakes is present.

    Why do deflection testing on bars?

    We don’t believe that there is any efficiency to be gained through a stiffer handlebar, so why test for that?  Losses in efficiency are minimal but a stiff handlebar and stem can make the bike feel especially responsive to rider inputs, especially out of the saddle. we’re unconvinced of any performance benefit to a stiffer bar, but many people like the feeling one provides. What we are convinced of is that the additive effect of parts that deflect more does at some point become a problem.  The point at which it becomes a problem is different for different riders and terrains.   Conversely, a flattened bar like the new 3T Tornova or Enve SES models will provide increased deflection (and therefore bump comfort) compared to a bar with a round cross-section.

    If you combined a very flexible, frame, steerer, stem, bar etc… into one bike you’d more than likely notice a lack of confidence in it’s handling.  If you mounted the most rigid pieces you could find in one bike many people would find a lack of comfort.  The ideal is some moving sweet spot in between that is different for each given set of circumstances.

    About the Testing Method

    Each handlebar was mounted in the fixture and the testing performed 3 times and then averaged.  All bars tested were as close to 44 cm as could be. Each bar was mounted with recommend torque specs and preloaded with 20 pounds of force applied in the drops.  Once preloaded the equipment was zeroed and another 50 pounds of force was added and a measurement recorded.  The measurement was taken at the point of load

    Notes about the loads tested:  The actual load doesn’t matter because the response of the structure is linear. That is, a handlebar that deflects 5mm under a 50-lb load will deflect 7.5 mm under a 75-lb load, 10 mm under a 100-lb load and so forth. This assumption of a linear response to loads is valid roughly until an aluminum bar bends permanently (plastic deformation) or until a carbon bar breaks (brittle failure). These bars were loaded with 50 pounds because it’s a nice round number and a fairly realistic approximation of real-world conditions.

    If a sprinting rider is pushing on the left pedal with 200 lbf (in other words, he can squat 400 lbs), he must create an equal and opposite moment (twisting force) via the handlebars. The pedal is about half as far from the frame centerline as the handlebar drops are, so it would take a reaction force of 100 lbs at the right-hand bar to counteract the pedaling force. This is the same as applying 50 lbf up on the one side of the bar and 50 lbf down on the other; the total moment is the same.

    Stiffness to weight ratio:  This was calculated using =((1/avg. defl) / weight) * 1000

    Notes about bar width:  Widths were recorded at the curve where levers would mount and were measured center to center.

    Notes about reach, drop and flare: One thing that has always bothered us is that there is no standard system for measuring reach and drop. Actual vs. claimed reach particularly can vary dramatically, in this test alone the bars range by almost 3 cm in length.  3cm can be the difference between needing a 9 cm or 12 cm stem, yet many people don’t consider reach on their bars when making a choice.  We decided to level the field here by measuring them all to the same standard.  With the drops horizontal to the ground the reach is measured from the center of the top (where the bar mounts into the stem)  to the leading edge of the vertical drop (where the lever would mount).  Drop is measured with the drops horizontal to the ground and from center to center.  For some companies our measurements may match up with what is claimed, but for others it may differ significantly because the manufacturer used a different measurement method.

    We have a separate listing for flare.  Flare is how much wider a bar is at the drops than where the levers mount.  For some bars the widths in the locations are the same, but for others they may be as much as 4 cm wider at the end of the drops.

    Carbon Fiber vs. Aluminum:  While carbon offers little or no weight savings when applied to stems, the lightest handlebars are usually made from laminated fiber. Handlebars are stressed primarily in bending, and 0-degree carbon fibers take these loads very, very well. When you throw in a few layers at 45 degrees to deal with torsional loads and maybe some circumferential reinforcements where the levers mount, you often end up with a bar that’s a bit lighter than the equivalent aluminum bar.

    As noted above, aluminum bars tend to fail by bending permanently (ductile failure) while carbon bars usually snap into pieces (brittle failure). While “shattered” carbon bars make for shudder-inducing post-crash photos, keep in mind that a strong carbon bar will shrug off loads that would bend its aluminum counterpart. Ductile failure is not necessarily a better failure mode than brittle failure.

    Reduced weight is a wonderful thing, but carbon bars offer another advantage: they tend to damp high-frequency vibration better than aluminum bars. Composite structures generally damp vibration better than metallic ones, and many riders have found real-world damping benefits when they fit a carbon handlebar. It would be interesting to quantify carbon bar damping; one way to do so would be to wire an accelerometer to the drops and then gently strike or pluck the bar, letting it “ring” at its natural frequency. One could then read the accelerometer data to see how quickly the vibrations dissipated. This ring-down test may be on the Fairwheel menu for a future article, but is outside the scope of this test.

    Opinions on the bars: Most bars are obviously similar in concept, but still very different in execution.  Finding a bar that is comfortable to a rider involves personal preference as to the shape and depth of the drop as well as reach, flare and sweep.  Because of this we’re going to keep our opinions on fit and shape to a minimum, leaving those up to each individual to find what is right for them.  We’ll focus this review on weight, stiffness, reach, finish, price etc…

    Now Onto the Results

    Manufacturer Model Width (cm) Flare (cm) Weight (g) Avg Deflection (mm) StW Drop (mm) Reach (mm) Material
    3T Ergonova 43 1.5 223.2 4.37 1.03 119 90 Carbon
    3T Tornova Team 44 1 213.3 5.28 0.89 138 94 Carbon
    3T Ergosum 44 1.5 205.1 4.62 1.05 126 103 Carbon
    Deda Newton Deep 44 0 274.4 3.9 0.93 137 106 Alloy
    Enve Aero 40 4 239 4.64 0.9 121 85 Carbon
    Enve Compact 44 1.5 202.1 4.52 1.09 121 88 Carbon
    Enve Standard 44 2 197.4 4.55 1.11 147 96 Carbon
    Mcfk Mcfk 43 1.5 171.8 4.56 1.28 112 77 Carbon
    New Ultimate Evo 44 0 182.4 4.92 1.12 126 85 Carbon
    Pro Vibe Cargon 43.5 0 236.5 2.99 1.41 127 91 Carbon
    Ritchey WCS Carbon Logic2 44 1 202.2 4.57 1.08 139 94 Carbon
    Ritchey WCS Classic 44 0 239 4.25 0.99 133 90 Alloy
    Ritchey WCS Logic2 44 0 254.2 3.94 0.99 135 93 Alloy
    Schmolke TLO 44 0 148.4 4.43 1.52 134 102 Carbon
    Schmolke Full Over 43 0 158.1 3.11 2.03 133 86 Carbon
    Zipp SL 44 0 178.4 5.45 1.03 148 102 Carbon

    Thoughts on Each Handlebar

    3T Ergonova Handlebar

    3T Ergonova

    3T Ergonova

    Overall a well balanced bar. Price, and reach fall in the middle of the field but weight and SxW are below the midpoint in the bottom half of the field. Deflection is better than average being 6th out of 16. Nicely finished with multiple graphic options including the ever popular black on black stealth.

    • Make: 3T
    • Model: Ergonova
    • Width: 43 cm
    • Flare: 1.5 cm
    • Weight: 223.2 gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.37 mm
    • StW: 1.03
    • Drop: 119 mm
    • Reach: 90 mm
    • Price: $325
    • Material: Carbon
    3T Ergosum Road Handlebar

    3T Ergosum

    3T Ergosum

    Like the ErgoNova the ErgoSum is also nicely finished, decently priced and includes the same graphic options.  The ErgoSum though is a longer reach bar, being 3rd from the longest in the test.  It’s also lighter than the Ergonova which gives it a better stiffness to weight ratio, 9th out of 16.

    • Make: 3T
    • Model: Ergosum
    • Width: 44 cm
    • Flare: 1.5 cm
    • Weight: 205.1 gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.62 mm
    • StW: 1.05
    • Drop: 126 mm
    • Reach: 103 mm
    • Price: $325
    • Material: Carbon
    3T Tornova Road Handlebar

    3T Tornova

    3T Tornova

    The Tornova is a flat topped bar that fills the reach/drop gap between the ErgoNova and ErgoSum. However the flat top comes at a price either weight or deflection. The Tornova is the lightest flat topped bar in the test, however that causes it to be 2nd from the bottom in terms of deflection. Like the other 3T bars this one too is very nicely finished with a pretty neutral shape in terms of reach and drop and is also available in several finishes.

    • Make: 3T
    • Model: Tornova Team
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 1 cm
    • Weight: 213.3gms
    • Avg Defl: 5.28mm
    • StW: 0.89
    • Drop: 138mm
    • Reach: 94mm
    • Price: $325
    • Material: Carbon
    Deda Newton Road Handlebar

    Deda Newton

    Deda Newton Deep

    The Deda is one of only 3 alloy bars in the test.  This too has it’s pros and cons.  Being alloy it naturally is less expensive than carbon offerings, but also heavier.  The Newton is a very classic style bar with long reach (longest measured in the test) and fairly deep drops.  The Newton is also the heaviest bar in the test, but this extra weight gives it one of the best deflection results in the test rating 3rd in deflection.  However this extra stiffness isn’t enough to overcome the weight penalty which puts it 3rd from the bottom in terms of stiffness to weight.

    • Make: Deda
    • Model: Newton Deep
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 274.4 gms
    • Avg Defl: 3.90mm
    • StW: 0.93
    • Drop: 137mm
    • Reach: 106mm
    • Price: $150
    • Material: aluminum
    ENVE SES Aerobar Road Handlebar

    ENVE SES Aerobar

    ENVE SES Aerobar

    Opinion: The Enve SES Aero is the only fully flat topped bars in the test (3T Tornova being semi-flat) Enve chose to add some weight to the bar to help keep it from deflecting as much so it is heavier than the Tornova but also stiffer with a slightly better stiffness to weight ratio. Since this bar is intended to be aero, Enve opted to flare it significantly, 4cm to be exact, which is 2.5 cm more flare than any other bar in the test. This actually separates it quite well from most of the bars giving it a very narrow profile while on the hoods and still plenty of width when in the drops. The bar is very nicely finished and is the only Enve bar available in the popular black on black combo and at 85mm reach is the shortest reach of the 3 Enve bars.

    • Make: Enve
    • Model: Aero
    • Width: 40cm
    • Flare: 4cm
    • Weight: 239.0gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.64mm
    • StW: 0.90
    • Drop: 121mm
    • Reach: 85mm
    • Price: $400
    • Material: Carbon
    ENVE Compact Road Handlebar

    ENVE Compact

    ENVE Compact

    The Enve compact is without a doubt a super well balanced bar. In testing 16 bars, this compact finished 7th in both overall weight and stiffness to weight, as well as 8th in average deflection making it probably the most well balanced bar in the test. Being the compact version puts the bar in the shorter end of the reach spectrum with only 4 bars having shorter reach and 3 bars with shallower drops. The $350 price puts it just slightly above some of the other carbon bars in the test, but still well off the most expensive ones. To date this bar is still not available in black on black, which is one of the requests me often see.

    • Make: Enve
    • Model: Compact
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 1.5cm
    • Weight: 202.1gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.52mm
    • StW: 1.09
    • Drop: 121mm
    • Reach: 88mm
    • Price: $350
    • Material: Carbon
    ENVE Standard Road Handlebar

    Enve Standard

    ENVE Standard

    Opinion: The Enve classic is similar to the Enve compact in most of it’s test results. 6th in weight, 8th in stiffness to weight and 9th in average deflection puts this bar just behind the compact in terms of being the bar that balances the traits most evenly. Which is why these two bars are probably some of the most popular that we’ve seen in this class. The Standard is basically the compact with a longer reach and deeper drop for those looking for a more classic fit in their bar. Like the compact the standard has great finish quality and looks.

    • Make: Enve
    • Model: Standard
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 2cm
    • Weight: 197.4gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.55mm
    • StW: 1.11
    • Drop: 147mm
    • Reach: 96mm
    • Price: $350
    • Material: Carbon
    MCFK Road Handlebar

    MCFK

    MCFK

    The Mcfk bar definitely stands out in several ways. Most noticeable is the short reach. At 77mm reach it’s almost a full cm shorter than the next shortest bar tested. This is partly achieved through a nicely back swept top. The drops also have a very distinct shape being perhaps the ergo-ist (if that could be a word) It’s also the shallowest drop of all the tested bars. Weight wise Mcfk did really well coming in 3rd lightest but still managing to hit 10th in deflection giving it the 4th best stiffness to weight ratio in the test. However the superlight weight and good S/W ratio come at a price, both monetarily (3rd most expensive) and in terms of a 100kg rider weight limit. However it’s hard to deny this as a top contender for the rider that likes a short reach and shallow drop light weight bar that still has plenty of stiffness.

    • Make: Mcfk
    • Model: Mcfk
    • Width: 43cm
    • Flare: 1.5cm
    • Weight: 171.8gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.56mm
    • StW: 1.28
    • Drop: 112mm
    • Reach: 77mm
    • Price: $550
    • Material: Carbon
    New Ultimate Evo Road Handlebar

    New Ultimate Evo

    New Ultimate Evo

    The New Ultimate Evo slots into the test as the least expensive carbon bar tested. It has a very short reach tied for 2nd (with Enve SES Aero) and a very average 126 drop. The Evo has an ovalized top section, but certainly not a full flat top. In terms of weight it does very well coming in 5th overall but it’s deflection is 3rd from the bottom, due to the decision to ovalize the tops as well as keep the weight so low. However when looking at stiffness to weight ratios the light weight more than offsets the deflection putting the Evo into 5th overall in the category. It’s available in both nude carbon as well as white and both have a very nice finish to them but with an 88 kgs rider weight limit.

    • Make: New Ultimate
    • Model: Evo
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 182.4gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.92mm
    • StW: 1.12
    • Drop: 126mm
    • Reach: 85mm
    • Price: $270
    • Material: Carbon
    Shimano Pro Vibe Carbon Road Handlebar

    Shimano Pro Vibe Carbon

    Shimano Pro Vibe Carbon

    The Shimano Pro Vibe Carbon topped the test in terms of average deflection. It is significantly stiffer than all the other traditionally diametered bars in the test. Only the oversized Schmolke gave it a run for it’s money. However it seems that this stiffness is due mostly to added material since this bar also topped the test in another category, being the heaviest carbon bar in the test with traditional round or oval tops. The stiffness is enough that it overcomes the added weight putting this into the 3rd spot in terms of stiffness to weight ratio, but this bar is definitely catered more toward the sprinter or heavy rider who is more concerned about stiffness than weight. Reach and drop both hit very mid field and the finish on the bar is very nice.

    • Make: Pro
    • Model: Vibe Carbon
    • Width: 43.5cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 236.5gms
    • Avg Defl: 2.99mm
    • StW: 1.41
    • Drop: 127mm
    • Reach: 91mm
    • Price: $370
    • Material: Carbon
    Ritchey WCS Carbon Logic2 Handlebar

    Ritchey WCS Carbon Logic2

    Ritchey WCS Carbon Logic2

    The Ritchey WCS Carbon Logic is also a bar that targets a balancing of characteristics. 8th in terms of weight, 11th in terms of deflection and mid field 8th in terms of stiffness to weight ratio. Pretty average reach with a deeper than average drop. Nicely finished and with a decent price.

    • Make: Ritchey
    • Model: WCS Carbon Logic2
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 1cm
    • Weight: 202.2
    • Avg Defl: 4.57mm
    • StW: 1.08
    • Drop: 139mm
    • Reach: 94mm
    • Price: $300
    • Material: Carbon
    Ritchey WCS Classic Road Handlebar

    Ritchey WCS Classic

    Ritchey WCS Classic

    The Ritchey WCS Classic is exactly that, a classic shaped alloy bar. Along with another test alloy Ritchey the Classic is the least expensive bar in the test and is the lightest of the 3 tested alloy bars. It’s the least stiff of the 3 alloy bars, but with it’s lighter weight it is tied for 1st in stiffness to weight ratio of the alloys. Medium reach and deep drop.

    • Make: Ritchey
    • Model: WCS Classic
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 239.0gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.25mm
    • StW: 0.99
    • Drop: 133mm
    • Reach: 90mm
    • Price: $100
    • Material: Aluminum
    Ritchey Pro Logic Road Handlebar

    Ritchey Pro Logic

    Ritchey WCS Logic2

    The Logic2 is the 3rd alloy bar in the test and is very similar in test results to the Classic but with a longer reach and deeper drop. The 2nd heaviest bar in the test but also the 4th stiffest put this one into a shared spot with the WCS classic for best stiffness to weight ratio of the alloy bars.

    • Make: Ritchey
    • Model: WCS Logic2
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 254.2gms
    • Avg Defl: 3.94mm
    • StW: 0.99
    • Drop: 135mmRit
    • Reach: 93mm
    • Price: $100
    • Material: Aluminum

    Schmolke TLO

    The Schmolke TLO is definitely a standout in the weight category and also the price category. We don’t think this weight should come as a surprise though considering that Schmolke produced the very first full carbon handlebar and has been focused on developing and refining that design for just about 25 years. The TLO really is the pinnacle of how light a carbon bar can be yet still be safe for most riders. Even at the lightest of all tested bars it still finished just better than mid field in terms of deflection being 7th out of 16. In terms of stiffness to weight it finished 2nd being bested by only a uniquely designed Schmolke bar. The stock TLO has a rider weight limit of 75-80kgs, but they will make bars specially for heavier riders. The TLO has a longer reach and deeper drop than most of the bars in the test.

    • Make: Schmolke
    • Model: TLO
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 148.4gms
    • Avg Defl: 4.43mm
    • StW: 1.52
    • Drop: 134mm
    • Reach: 102mm
    • Price: $640
    • Material: Carbon
    Schmolke Full Over Road Handlebar

    Schmolke Full Over

    Schmolke Full Over

    The Schmolke Full Over is a bit of a different bar. Typically a bar is 31.8mm at the stem clamp and then tapers down to about 24mm. To keep weight down but increase stiffness you need to increase tube diameter. Assuming a constant wall thickness, increasing a tube’s diameter increases its weight directly with the diameter, but the stiffness of the tube increases with the cube of the diameter. The Full Over takes advantage of this principle, keeping a larger diameter, about 27mm, all the way to the end of the drops. This larger diameter makes a significant difference in stiffness. The Full Over was the 2nd lightest bar in the test and the 2nd stiffest. However it did so well in both of these that stiffness to weight ratio is almost 25% higher than the next bar (the TLO). Having a larger diameter bar means that standard lever clamps do not fit so the bar comes with it’s own carbon lever clamps, which increase the price yet again, but also knock another 5-10 grams off the total system weight.

    • Make: Schmolke
    • Model: Full Over
    • Width: 43cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 158.1gms
    • Avg Defl: 3.11mm
    • StW: 2.03
    • Drop: 133mm
    • Reach: 86mm
    • Price: $750
    • Material: Carbon
    Zipp SL Road Handlebar

    Zipp SL

    Zipp SL

    We should preface this by saying the Zipp bar we tested is not the latest model and newer models may test differently. We’ll include newer models in future tests. The Zipp SL is one of the lighter bars in the test, 4th overall in weight. Unfortunately it was the least stiff of all tested bars which drags down it’s stiffness to weight numbers making it 10th overall, just below mid field. It does however have a long reach and the deepest drops for those looking to have a more aggressive position on their bike.

    • Make: Zipp
    • Model: SL
    • Width: 44cm
    • Flare: 0cm
    • Weight: 178.4gms
    • Avg Defl: 5.45mm
    • StW: 1.03
    • Drop: 148mm
    • Reach: 102mm
    • Price: $300
    • Material: Carbon

    Now For a Few Graphs

    Road Handlebar Review Weight

    Weight

    Road Handlebar Review Stiffness to Weight

    Stiffness to Weight

    Road Handlebar Review Average Deflection

    Average Deflection

    I run the Facebook Page, Twitter Account and write code the rest of the day.
    #95569
    Participant

    Excellent information! Thanks!!!!!!!!!

    Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?
    #95570

    “That is, a handlebar that deflects 5mm under a 25-lb load will deflect 7.5 mm under a 75-lb load, 10 mm under a 100-lb load and so forth.” Perhaps the load corresponding to 5mm in this progression would be 50-lb?

    #95584
    Participant

    Thanks for the test! Will be glad to see the Deda M35 involved in the next version

    #95594
    Participant

    Hi Emiliano, thank you so much for this analysis it’s really helpful!

    I have a couple of questions:
    - in this link, http://fairwheelbikes.com/c/2014-road-handlebar-review-2/, you review the Aeronova but above this changes to the Tornova? Was this a typo?
    -When you measure drop is this c-c from i) the centre of the stem mount to the centre of the end of the drops; OR ii) the centre of the end of top section of the bars to the centre of the end of the drops. The reason I ask is that some bars drop from the stem mount to the end of the bars and I was wondering if this was incorporated into your measure.

    Thanks again, love your work.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

Log in to reply to this topic. Don't have an account? Register Here