[Closed] So Easton have a new Bar diamter.........

That's been done on the road for a while now. Mental.

well, they couldve increased the wall thickness on a 31.8 bar for the same effect, but then everyone would be saying how heavy they were. you cant win.

and in fact that just what the editor of the mag said as well...

just wonder why they only went from 32 ish to 35... should have gone further - ? engineering reason, or just so they can sell more bars (and stems) in a few years at 38mm-40mm?

trust in chuck teixera you cant really go wrong.

I see these luddite bmx-ers are still on 22.2mm though. Not really up-to-date with bmx, but I haven't heard of a heap of new 'standards' in their neck of the woods, and they are still making us look like unskilled doofuses.

Anyone remember the short-lived 28.6mm 'standard' that preceded 31.8? Somewhere I still have a scott 'pilot' mountain bike handlebar that won't fit anything apart from a motocross bike nowadays 😕

.

Think I want those bars.

Over [url= http://bikethomson.com/2011/12/22/elite-25-4-stems/ ]here[/url] on the Thomson blog there is mention of them working towards a stem in this "standard" too...

Nice. Nothing wrong with that at all.

dicks.

Great idea!

Except they are only making stems with a 1 1/8" steerer. I want one for my 1.5" steerer and my new Giant with a 1 1/4" steerer.

(I don't actually have any of these, I'm still on a 1 1/8 straight steerer, but this is going to add to the stocking nightmare for bike shops)

I'm still on 25.4... If I wait long enough to upgrade maybe the standard bar diameter will have actually doubled!

...or gone full circle and back to 25.4!

My old DH rig bars were 22.2mm, with a BMX stem. Single Wall Renthal MX bars (braced) I think they flexed a bit though, used to really reduce trail vibration 🙂 I landed so many stupidly heavy nosedives from 6ft+ up I'm surprised they didn't snap. I rode my mates hardtail, with Monster T's and Renthals and did a stair run forgetting to drop the saddle and landed full stop on the fork and nothing really seemed to give. I see they've leapt a tenner to £44 nowadays and no longer do the shape I used to love (GasGas Trials 4.25" risers)

In fact, now I remember, the PX DH bars in my commuter are shimmed to fit a 25.4mm stem, so must be 22.2mm, and I bought these old things for £5 at a bike fair over a decade ago.

Ive got some chromo 22.2 s on way from crc as it goes .I must be olde fash !!?? 😳

what Al said

Ohhhhh a new standard... I mean we only had 22 for BMX, 26 for road, 25.4 for mtb oh and yes I had some old 28.6 scott somewhere. And lets not forget 31.8...

What Al and Loco said. Same goes for Deda.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.

To be fair though, it's an impressive bit of kit... Wider, lighter and stronger than what was already a market leader, not too shabby. Considering what they do with the standard sizing already I'm not going to assume they've taken this step without good reason

(to give a comparison... The Monkeylite DH bar used to be (supposedly) the strongest bar in the world, the current Haven carbon is (supposedly) just as strong, and it's just as wide, yet it weighs just 170g- 25% off the weight. There's got to be a limit to how far you can go with that sort of improvement)

One of the reasons BMX bars can still be 22.2 is that they have a brace in them, and that takes away some of the stress placed on small diameter bars.

I think they look pretty good, and they seem mainly focused for downhill riders, so it won't be affecting my bike for a little while...

So just the bog standard non-standard standard again then?

It's not a standard it's an option.

25.4 (in carbon) here. I prefer the way they flex a bit with solid forks.

BMX bars tend to be made of STEEL.

I'm all for progress, nobody is forcing anyone to buy it, only buy it if you want a lighter stronger product... 🙄

BMX bars seem to be getting wider again...

What next eh? Bigger wheels? Ha!

how many of you have actually ever snapped some bars, these are pointless

Yeah, I was wondering the same as anus. I've not heard of bars failing that often unless there's a manufacturing defect.

Maybe if they're going to be over 100cm wide...

I have bent some alloy bars in a crash.

(road drops; came off second best in a bike-car interface; one side bent to about 45° from vertical...)

Never (yet) snapped any though.

Andy

nobody is forcing anyone to buy it

Seen rob warner snap his bars cranking it off the start line at a dragon downhill at mynydd du, he kept riding one handed!..... Animal.

It's very difficult to find a stem or a decent bar in 25.4 diameter.

My calendar is for 2012... not 1993... which was when the Syncros stem on my Kona was made and 23" bars were wide 😆

So...

In 1993 23"(580mm) wide bars were W-I-D-E and 25.4mm was fine

Come 2002(?) 27"(685mm) bars were W--I--D--E and carbon was becoming popular which made a move to 31.6mm desirable/sensible

Now in 2012 bars are becomming really W----I-----D----E at 32"(800mm), it's hardly surprising that a move to a size above 31.6mm is desirable for strength. Why whinge when stuff gets better*

* Better... assumes people want lighter and stronger stuff???

What I want to know is where are all the second hand 25.4mm thomson stems gone?

All my bikes are 25.4mm, but to finish off one build I want a silver thomson stem in 25.4mm. With everyone going to oversized, id have thought the classifieds would be awash with s/h 25.4mm stems! But no... 🙁

id have thought the classifieds would be awash with s/h 25.4mm stems! But no...

and medium cage 9spd mechs.. But also, no.. 🙁

[img] [/img]

I've snapped a set of bars & cracked another.
But they were cheap ones with a welded brace, both went on the control side of the weld.[url= ]These things[/url]

In reply to Messiah and Northwind: I posted the bellow in a separate new thread as I didn't see this one. However with that in mind would you care to answer/explain the questions I've set out?

Now Easton are saying their new bars with their new standard are stronger, stiffer and lighter yet they're much bigger than previous incantations. Now unless they've found some new wonder material that has a lower specific density than what they were making them out of before surely this means that the material they're using has to be inherently thinner walled to loose this weight. Especially considering there's more surface area to cover considering they're actually greater in diameter and wider in width. So the next question on that basis has to be, whilst they may be stronger, etc, are Easton sacrificing versatility e.g. impact resistance to get this improved strength, etc?

As for want of a better way to put it. It seems very reminiscent of the early/mid 90's when frame manufacturers discovered they could make significantly lighter, stronger alloy frames using massively oversized tubes. Though the problem was the alloy was so thin on many of the tubes, downtubes especially, that if you dropper your bikes sideways on a sharp rock you seriously risked damaging it as there simply wasn't enough material there to cope with an off axis impact.

Now would anyone care to explain to me how Easton can overcome this?

Its marketing and commercial bollocks.

How do we sell more of the same stuff to the same people............use marketing to tell them it fills a need they didnt even know they had.

big diameter thin wall bars, hmmm, would they actually break quicker than a smaller diameter thick wall bar if say the stem bar interface had a burr/ small amount of movement that slowly wore it away?

(just reminded me of one of my mates when his bars snapped at the bar/stem interface)

frank4short - Member
So the next question on that basis has to be, whilst they may be stronger, etc, are Easton sacrificing versatility e.g. impact resistance to get this improved strength, etc?

Maybe... Or maybe the current wall thicknesses are thicker/stronger than they need to be from that perspective, so it's something that can be reduced without ill effect but which is needed because of the current bar radius. Who knows? Easton hopefully... Is impact resistance something to worry about in a bar as it stands? can't say I've ever given it any thought.

They've probably just saved a new technique for these bars so they can do the 'lighter, stiffer, stronger' line.
They'll probably roll out the smaller bars using the same technique and they'll be lighter still.

Northwind - Member

Maybe... Or maybe the current wall thicknesses are thicker/stronger than they need to be from that perspective, so it's something that can be reduced without ill effect but which is needed because of the current bar radius. Who knows? Easton hopefully... [b]Is impact resistance something to worry about in a bar as it stands?[/b] can't say I've ever given it any thought.

I'm not necessarily saying it is something to worry about. However have they potentially over done it ala the example I gave of alloy frames in the 90's. Whilst i know you're unlikely to impact damage a bar in a normal crash situation. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that say a small awkward crash on some rocks could lead to impact damage on the bars. Potentially effectively righting them off as all of these additional strength gains would be moot once the cross section has been affected. It just appears to me to be a retrograde step essentially in the interest of introducing a new standard. I don't think the road bar example as given be njee has any relevance as road bars are unlikely to ever be in a collision situation in normal operation either whereas mtbs/ers regularly crash.

I will however wait with baited breadth to see whether or not the industry starts to accept this new standard and whether or not in long run they do turn out to be be stronger, lighter, stiffer and most crucial of all more versatile.

Perfect timing easton, thanks 😀

road bars are unlikely to ever be in a collision situation in normal operation

I'm guessing you've not seen many Cat 4 races? 😉

Well... from my completely uneducated viewpoint, and from looking at the pictures, I can see that they have increased the length as well as the girth of the bulged centre centre section of the bar. Which kind of makes sense as this will improve the stiffness and fatigue resistance of this area; which means they can make it thinner... hence make the whole thing lighter. We are talking 15g or something so it aint going to change the world, but if it's bettererererer then why not? Just because it annoy's some folk who think standards MUST be adhered too is actually enough reason for me to agree. Standards have a purpose in that they simplify some things, but if they are holding back advances in technology then BURN THE STANDARDS... er... no... but as I said before... buy them or don't... the choice is yours. 😉