How do I work out how much to increase stem length?

[RockCoach]

I don't feel any difference in ability to apply leverage to the pedals with any bar between 780mm and 580mm. Buts that's probably because I apply leverage through my legs and not through my arms

 

Try riding a gear that you are barely able to turn for a given gradient.

 

*I did point that out right up front.

[Capricorn]

If you've ever ridden a SS up a steep bank where you are straining to turn the cranks, you would appreciate the extra leverage of wider bars for climbing.

 

As your right foot powers down onto the pedal, your right hand is pulling up on the rhs of the bar with considerable force. A bar which is wider (within reason) gives you more leverage between bar and pedal and thus more force on the pedal. Try it. It works on all bikes in steep climbing situations.

 

road bikes have heavier gearing than MTBs in general, and they have positively midget size bar widths in comparison. Yet those guys can climb without resorting to wider bars. I believe your experience, but the explanation why doesn't make sense. 

 

Robodog: maybe help me understand by breaking down the debate into a classical physics problem, by using the following diagram to explain why you believe leverage of wider bars translates into more force at the crank.

 

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/teachers/Lesson%20plans/11-14%20Sample%20lesson%20plan/Levers_/images/1.gif

[GoLefty!!]

Try riding a gear that you are barely able to turn for a given gradient.

 

*I did point that out right up front.

 

Nope still don't see your point. All the wider bars lets me do is lean the bike more and that's not very efficient.

[Nayr]

road bikes have heavier gearing than MTBs in general, and they have positively midget size bar widths in comparison. Yet those guys can climb without resorting to wider bars. I believe your experience, but the explanation why doesn't make sense. 

 

Robodog: maybe help me understand by breaking down the debate into a classical physics problem, by using the following diagram to explain why you believe leverage of wider bars translates into more force at the crank.

 

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/teachers/Lesson%20plans/11-14%20Sample%20lesson%20plan/Levers_/images/1.gif

Pulling up on the bar drives more down-force through your legs when standing... easy example of how this could work is, take a bathroom scale, put it in a door way stand on it, take a reading then push up on the lintel and take the reading. for the wider bar example go to a gym, with a barbell do a dead-lift with your hands together, then do a dead-lift with your hands slightly wider than shoulder width, the wider your hands go the more leverage and control you have...within reason of course...when you go past shoulder width you start using your larger muscle groups more which will give you more power as well...excuse the rudimentary approach but the physics are the same.

[Nayr]

Nope still don't see your point. All the wider bars lets me do is lean the bike more and that's not very efficient.

 

Technically the narrower your bar the more you'll be able to lean the bike...

[GoLefty!!]

 

 

I see why wide bar fanatics can argue so much.

 

You have the ability to reinvent physics

 

 

push down on pedal and pull up on bars are too different vectors so the upward pull is subtracted from the downward push i.e. a nett reduction in downward force.

 

also very inefficient because you're using energy that should be driving the pedals to in effect do nothing....

 

all you're using the bars for is to brace yourself. The width of the bar is irrelevant to this.

[Capricorn]

Pulling up on the bar drives more down-force through your legs when standing... easy example of how this could work is, take a bathroom scale, put it in a door way stand on it, take a reading then push up on the lintel and take the reading. for the wider bar example go to a gym, with a barbell do a dead-lift with your hands together, then do a dead-lift with your hands slightly wider than shoulder width, the wider your hands go the more leverage and control you have...within reason of course...when you go past shoulder width you start using your larger muscle groups more which will give you more power as well...excuse the rudimentary approach but the physics are the same.

 

i dont follow the deadlift analogy. Position along the length of the barbell does not translate into my driving force from the legs and hips. All it does is stabilize the barbell better. What you are describing is a problem of balance. But your attempt at analogy just brings the discussion back to the idea of which muscles are engaged.

 

Pressing harder on the pedals does require a counter acting force. Most of the energy is expended in turning over the pedals, but some force is required to balance the body. Narrower bars rely less on the big pectorals, and more on the triceps. Wider grips shift the muscular effort to the pecs as in a benchpress. So therefore it is easier to stabilize the body using a wider grip.

 

Road cyclists, especially track cyclists, who are high pedal torque monsters don't advocate wider bars to generate more power. Why is this?

Furthermore, roadies generate more pedal force by ensuring the body mass is completely over one pedal (see my earlier thoughts on what I believe actually affects force on the pedals). To do this, 1). they must be off the saddle, 2) they must sway the bike side to side to ensure all their body mass is driving straight down onto the pedal as far as possible.

 

Under seated, high torque pedalling, the body requires more stability, which I agree will be a bit easier with a wider handlebar. But I still believe this is a case for balance and increased pedaling efficiency. (there's a counter argument there, but its going to be based on semantics: efficiency = less wastage energy etc).

[Nayr]

i dont follow the deadlift analogy. Position along the length of the barbell does not translate into my driving force from the legs and hips. All it does is stabilize the barbell better. What you are describing is a problem of balance. But your attempt at analogy just brings the discussion back to the idea of which muscles are engaged.

 

Pressing harder on the pedals does require a counter acting force. Most of the energy is expended in turning over the pedals, but some force is required to balance the body. Narrower bars rely less on the big pectorals, and more on the triceps. Wider grips shift the muscular effort to the pecs as in a benchpress. So therefore it is easier to stabilize the body using a wider grip.

 

Road cyclists, especially track cyclists, who are high pedal torque monsters don't advocate wider bars to generate more power. Why is this?

Furthermore, roadies generate more pedal force by ensuring the body mass is completely over one pedal (see my earlier thoughts on what I believe actually affects force on the pedals). To do this, 1). they must be off the saddle, 2) they must sway the bike side to side to ensure all their body mass is driving straight down onto the pedal as far as possible.

 

Under seated, high torque pedalling, the body requires more stability, which I agree will be a bit easier with a wider handlebar. But I still believe this is a case for balance and increased pedaling efficiency. (there's a counter argument there, but its going to be based on semantics: efficiency = less wastage energy etc).

You have to go back to Robodogs' post on a short sharp incline in a heavy gear, thats all that was being discussed... he is hundred percent correct! Simple as counteracting forces as you put it.

 

My 'attempt' at the dead-lift analogy is quite simple, the wider your grip (once again within reason) the more you can lift and therefore more opposing force exerted through your legs...

[Capricorn]

You have to go back to Robodogs' post on a short sharp incline in a heavy gear, thats all that was being discussed... he is hundred percent correct! Simple as counteracting forces as you put it.

 

My 'attempt' at the dead-lift analogy is quite simple, the wider your grip (once again within reason) the more you can lift and therefore more opposing force exerted through your legs...

 

....right.

[EZRider]

You lot should be turning your pedals in circles and not pushing down on them.

[GoLefty!!]

You have to go back to Robodogs' post on a short sharp incline in a heavy gear, thats all that was being discussed... he is hundred percent correct! Simple as counteracting forces as you put it.

 

My 'attempt' at the dead-lift analogy is quite simple, the wider your grip (once again within reason) the more you can lift and therefore more opposing force exerted through your legs...

 

 

 

Last time I checked weight lifters held the mass as close to the their centreline as possible without losing stability..

 

but like the flat earth society, why let the truth get in the way of a great story

[Capricorn]

Last time I checked weight lifters held the mass as close to the their centreline as possible without losing stability..

 

but like the flat earth society, why let the truth get in the way of a great story

 

the lack of clarity around why track cyclists and roadies in general dont require wider bars negates the arguments that wider bars somehow result in more power at the cranks. I still maintain, that the leverage applied is purely for balance and stability rather than increasing leverage at the cranks. 

 

Following my ride earlier this evening, I mistakenly started out in a very hard gear. I noted that pull on the bars from the one arm, but then i realized it was easier to balance out with the other hand because of the lever arm offered by a longer bar. The exercise performed with hands pretty much gripping the stem proved that the same power can be laid down, but its just abit hard to control the direction of the bike at the point of take off. That is all. Same power, slightly less control.

 

The point to note however, is that i started in the wrong gear. With an SS, there is no choice under certain circumstances to select the ideal gear, and is therefore this situation of pulling on the bars is not the norm. That is, with more gear choices available, selecting the right gear for the right occassion negates any reason to be pulling on the bars like that. Sometimes its unavoidable, but is it only possible with wider bars? Definitely not. Does it generate more power from the legs? Most definitely not. At least that's what my ride experience this evening told me.

[GoLefty!!]

the lack of clarity around why track cyclists and roadies in general dont require wider bars negates the arguments that wider bars somehow result in more power at the cranks. I still maintain, that the leverage applied is purely for balance and stability rather than increasing leverage at the cranks. 

 

Following my ride earlier this evening, I mistakenly started out in a very hard gear. I noted that pull on the bars from the one arm, but then i realized it was easier to balance out with the other hand because of the lever arm offered by a longer bar. The exercise performed with hands pretty much gripping the stem proved that the same power can be laid down, but its just abit hard to control the direction of the bike at the point of take off. That is all. Same power, slightly less control.

 

The point to note however, is that i started in the wrong gear. With an SS, there is no choice under certain circumstances to select the ideal gear, and is therefore this situation of pulling on the bars is not the norm. That is, with more gear choices available, selecting the right gear for the right occassion negates any reason to be pulling on the bars like that. Sometimes its unavoidable, but is it only possible with wider bars? Definitely not. Does it generate more power from the legs? Most definitely not. At least that's what my ride experience this evening told me.

 

 

pretty much my experience over the years I have been cycling.

[Iwan Kemp]

the lack of clarity around why track cyclists and roadies in general dont require wider bars 

 

1. Preference is given to aero.

2. Same reason a Bianchi is celeste - it's always been done like that.

3. They don't have to carve single track and tight twist and turns

4. A handlebar wider than the space a rider takes up would be a disaster in the bunch.

5. Even on the steepest on inclines it's much easier to keep momentum and stick to your cadence rhythm. There are no sudden loss of traction to counter and there are no obstacles to negotiate their over when on an already steep incline. 

[Capricorn]

1. Preference is given to aero.

2. Same reason a Bianchi is celeste - it's always been done like that.

3. They don't have to carve single track and tight twist and turns

4. A handlebar wider than the space a rider takes up would be a disaster in the bunch.

5. Even on the steepest on inclines it's much easier to keep momentum and stick to your cadence rhythm. There are no sudden loss of traction to counter and there are no obstacles to negotiate their over when on an already steep incline. 

 

they have bunch riding in XCM, XCO as well, and apparently, quite manageable. Even megavalanche. Point I'm trying to make is its not a reason not to go wider if the power advantage were actually there.

 

speaking of cadence, there are some pretty steep sections of hills here with some nice marbles to smack your wheels around. I climbed them yesterday both on wide grip and and narrow grip (holding my stem tbh).  Neither configuration affected my cadence or speed of climb.  What i did feel was it was obviously easier to control the front wheel from wandering (wide grip) due to the marbles than anything else. Frankly, if you still pulling up on the bars while climbing under steady cadence, you are doing it wrong because the upper body is supposed to be relaxed. There are exceptions.

 

Furthermore, on a steep climb, you are more over the front to prevent it from wandering. This can be achieved with both wide and narrow bars. Again, controlling how front is just easier with wide bars, and in no way detracts from the torque applied to the cranks. 

[GoLefty!!]

1. Preference is given to aero.

2. Same reason a Bianchi is celeste - it's always been done like that.

3. They don't have to carve single track and tight twist and turns

4. A handlebar wider than the space a rider takes up would be a disaster in the bunch.

5. Even on the steepest on inclines it's much easier to keep momentum and stick to your cadence rhythm. There are no sudden loss of traction to counter and there are no obstacles to negotiate their over when on an already steep incline.

 

Never ridden the cobbles? You should try it some time. Parts of the pave actually have gradient...

 

None of the reasons you've given have any relevance to anything other than showing ignorance to the requirements of riding a road bike.

 

Ever tried riding a bicycle me with an overly long front centre up tight single track?