Yet another narrow bar: Worx Narrow and Super Narrow Bars

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13066
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Lina wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:58 am
If forearms are not allowed as a point of support then the first image in the article goes against the rule in my opinion. That's just puppy paws with extra steps trying to get around the rules. It looks like a position he could not stay in without the forearms acting as a point of support, and that imo is a reasonable line to draw on what position is against the rule and what isn't. If your wrists/forearms are making contact with the bars but you're holding the hoods/bars in a way that you could support yourself by only holding them then it should be legal. If you've got a couple fingers touching the hoods while you're re-enacting puppy paws then that is in all intents and purposes against both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

The point of contention doesn’t even seem to be his grip on the horns, but his forearms on the tops/ramps as these bars not only have 118mm reach but 35mm rise. However if the race officials want to DQ riders for forearms resting on bars, they’re going to have to DQ every single rider who ever rides a breakaway.

Lina
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:41 am
Lina wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:58 am
If forearms are not allowed as a point of support then the first image in the article goes against the rule in my opinion. That's just puppy paws with extra steps trying to get around the rules. It looks like a position he could not stay in without the forearms acting as a point of support, and that imo is a reasonable line to draw on what position is against the rule and what isn't. If your wrists/forearms are making contact with the bars but you're holding the hoods/bars in a way that you could support yourself by only holding them then it should be legal. If you've got a couple fingers touching the hoods while you're re-enacting puppy paws then that is in all intents and purposes against both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

The point of contention doesn’t even seem to be his grip on the horns, but his forearms on the tops/ramps as these bars not only have 118mm reach but 35mm rise. However if the race officials want to DQ riders for forearms resting on bars, they’re going to have to DQ every single rider who ever rides a breakaway.
I'm aware of the geometry of these bars, they're made for exactly this. If you're riding in a break or on the front your forearms or wrists are going to be touching the bars. These bars are designed so that you can use puppy paws while still keeping in contact with the horns. The way the current rule is written (This position requires
that the only points of support are the following: the feet on the pedals, the hands on the handlebars and the seat on the saddle.) using these bars in the manner that they're designed for is against both the spirit and letter of the rule. It's a non contest if he's using his forearms as a point of support. And if they have to DQ everyone in breakaways then so be it, but that really isn't the reality since on most bars you can't ride puppy paws while still keeping in contact with your hands on the horns, you might have contact with your forearms/wrists but it's not necessarily a point of support. But whatever the rule is you should enforce the rule as written and have the same standard for also the guys at the head of the peloton. The riders will either learn to ride according to the rules or someone who is able to do so will replace them.

And when using these bars for what they're designed for you very easily run foul of the geometry rules of how far forward your bars can be on the bike with modern geometry road bikes.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13066
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

He's barely got his hands on the horns, but that's not forced by the design of the bars. Nothing's preventing van Schip from having a normal grip, just like nothing prevents others from gripping the horns like that on normal bars...and I don't think anyone has be DQ for doing that yet either. van Schip's DQ just set a precedent.

RDY
Posts: 2587
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

As I said earlier, very narrow bars are likely to be banned very soon by the UCI, and most non-UCI race organizers will probably follow suit. The question is where they draw the line - and this time it will most likely be c-c for hood mount. It will almost certainly be above 300, and probably 330-340. If they're going to do it, IMO it should be 320 - smaller female riders should certainly be allowed to go smaller than 340.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13066
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

RDY wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 6:01 pm
As I said earlier, very narrow bars are likely to be banned very soon by the UCI, and most non-UCI race organizers will probably follow suit. The question is where they draw the line - and this time it will most likely be c-c for hood mount. It will almost certainly be above 300, and probably 330-340. If they're going to do it, IMO it should be 320 - smaller female riders should certainly be allowed to go smaller than 340.

They’ll have to police flare then too because what people care about is the distance between the horns. With what you’ve outlined, there’s nothing stopping someone from making 38cm drop bars with a very sharp flare only at the clamping area. The clamp distance would be 34cm but horn distance would be <30cm.

apr46
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:46 pm

by apr46

I have a tough time seeing the justification to ban bars based on tops measurements alone. As Tobin mentions re: flare you can also make use variable flare or a combination of variable flare and outsweep to sidestep that rule. One you specify flare, outreach and C-C at both the ends and the tops you have basically killed any future innovation for bars and positions.

If the UCI really cared about safety they would be banning setups by setting a min distance of the hoods position to the lever as measured from the center of the stem cap / or whatever the pivot axis is of the steerer. Since there is already effectively a forward reach rule + the min outside C-C this would provide the flexibility that smaller riders need while providing bike manufacturers a push towards safe frame designs that are more narrow bar friendly. It would also fit with the regulatory philosophy of providing constraints that allow for variations of designs rather than prescribing a design.

That said I could see enforcement of the current rules being weird from here out. At 70mm of bar reach i think you can argue that its the wrist not the forearm being a potential point of support. At 80mm its probably a grey area, but at 100mm of bar reach or if you have swept back narrow bars to acheive more distance, I think we might need some trouble for users of these bars in terms of enforcement.

Lina
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 5:52 pm
He's barely got his hands on the horns, but that's not forced by the design of the bars. Nothing's preventing van Schip from having a normal grip, just like nothing prevents others from gripping the horns like that on normal bars...and I don't think anyone has be DQ for doing that yet either. van Schip's DQ just set a precedent.
It's not a forced design of the bars but it's definitely the design goal of the bars. Nothing prevents him from having a normal grip. But the entire point he has those bars is to abuse their geometry and to try to use puppy paws while staying within the rules. But it's still clearly in violation of the rules. And yes, I don't think we've seen anyone DQd for what he got DQd, be it either geometry or forearm support. But how long have people been riding these bars? And have others riding them in this brief period abused them as blatantly?

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13066
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Lina wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:10 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 5:52 pm
He's barely got his hands on the horns, but that's not forced by the design of the bars. Nothing's preventing van Schip from having a normal grip, just like nothing prevents others from gripping the horns like that on normal bars...and I don't think anyone has be DQ for doing that yet either. van Schip's DQ just set a precedent.
It's not a forced design of the bars but it's definitely the design goal of the bars. Nothing prevents him from having a normal grip. But the entire point he has those bars is to abuse their geometry and to try to use puppy paws while staying within the rules. But it's still clearly in violation of the rules. And yes, I don't think we've seen anyone DQd for what he got DQd, be it either geometry or forearm support. But how long have people been riding these bars? And have others riding them in this brief period abused them as blatantly?

I would say they’re more designed for the modern Praying Mantis TT position. The point is to obscure or eliminate the well/funnel created by your upper arms, torso, legs. The fact that van Schip is going a step farther is another matter. Anyone can bring their hands together on any narrow flared bar, and there are quite a few now. The Worx bars are even more extreme in this regard.

Part of me really wants the UCI to limit the extension of the bars past the front axle to less than 10cm because that will just result in bikes being designed with even longer front-center measurements.
Last edited by TobinHatesYou on Sat Jun 08, 2024 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

208
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:57 pm

by 208

apr46 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 6:24 pm
If the UCI really cared about safety...
I think they care more about preserving the classic silhouette of the bike over actual safety, unfortunately.

I'm surprised they haven't banned 'different' cockpits like those found on the S5 or Oltre for instance.

RDY
Posts: 2587
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

208 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2024 6:47 am
apr46 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 6:24 pm
If the UCI really cared about safety...
I think they care more about preserving the classic silhouette of the bike over actual safety, unfortunately.

I'm surprised they haven't banned 'different' cockpits like those found on the S5 or Oltre for instance.
Based on all the incidents, Oltre should definitely be banned.

Hexsense
Posts: 3368
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am
Location: USA

by Hexsense

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:06 pm

Part of me really wants the UCI to limit the extension of the bars past the front axle to less than 10cm because that will just result in bikes being designed with even longer front-center measurements.
Yes please.
Either longer reach/top tube.
Or simply normalize HTA around 71 degree rather than 73 degree. And add more fork offset. That'd kick out the front wheel while preserve the trail value (handling) as well.
IMO, a lot of race bikes are just too compact. The front center/ wheelbase are no where long enough that the lack of handling agility can be an issue.

While we are at it, do we have a rule around saddle to rear wheel axle? I don't think we need one to prevent extremely short chainstay as it's technically not feasible but wouldn't be surprise if there is one as well considering we have a rule that hood can't be more than 10cm in front of front wheel axle.

apr46
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:46 pm

by apr46

I am not sure what the right design would be for a narrow bar bike. I would guess that you would want to reduce trail over today's bikes while preserving head angle, unless the saddle position goes up in which case a slacker head angle would help balance the design.

I personally am not a fan of 71 degree HA on road bikes. Its great for gravel but there is too much fighting the bike on technical descents and I look at it more as a design compromise rather than a feature. A large part of that is fit driven as well, so its going to be a bit individual and Cannondale has you covered if that is what you want. I do love my own bike which has an 80mm BB drop coupled with a 73 degree head angle and 50mm offset fork, but my saddle height is pretty modest.

Lina
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 11:06 pm
Lina wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 9:10 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2024 5:52 pm
He's barely got his hands on the horns, but that's not forced by the design of the bars. Nothing's preventing van Schip from having a normal grip, just like nothing prevents others from gripping the horns like that on normal bars...and I don't think anyone has be DQ for doing that yet either. van Schip's DQ just set a precedent.
It's not a forced design of the bars but it's definitely the design goal of the bars. Nothing prevents him from having a normal grip. But the entire point he has those bars is to abuse their geometry and to try to use puppy paws while staying within the rules. But it's still clearly in violation of the rules. And yes, I don't think we've seen anyone DQd for what he got DQd, be it either geometry or forearm support. But how long have people been riding these bars? And have others riding them in this brief period abused them as blatantly?

I would say they’re more designed for the modern Praying Mantis TT position. The point is to obscure or eliminate the well/funnel created by your upper arms, torso, legs. The fact that van Schip is going a step farther is another matter. Anyone can bring their hands together on any narrow flared bar, and there are quite a few now. The Worx bars are even more extreme in this regard.

Part of me really wants the UCI to limit the extension of the bars past the front axle to less than 10cm because that will just result in bikes being designed with even longer front-center measurements.
Yes, I'm aware what the design goal is witht he bars. As it is right now the way van Schip was using them is also in my opinion against the rules. The bars can also definitely be used within the rules. The benefit won't be as extreme as when taking things to the extreme like van Schip did, but they'll definitely still be fast.

And I agree with you that we need bikes with much more reach/front-center. Give me a bike with the same stack as my current 56 but with 3 - 5 cm more reach.

toxin
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:56 pm

by toxin

The rules are stupid anyway

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com




Post Reply