Bicycle Handlebars: Ergonomically Diabolical

Most modern cycling handlebars are not engineered with ergonomics in mind. While this is slowly changing, and the industry is becoming more conscious of the optimization of ergonomics and how it can benefit or improve a rider’s performance, there is still an undercurrent of design that is solely focused on engineering a product based on the tired old tenets of “lighter, stiffer, more aerodynamic.” In combination with orthodox thinking, the result is that most handlebars are not really optimized for interaction with a human body and have designs that are highly derivative of a basic blueprint that was made about 120 years ago.

The most egregious examples of this are modern integrated road handlebars, which are inherently problematic. It costs a lot of money to make a mold for each bar produced, and this means manufacturers will have limited sizing available. This forces riders to adapt to a bell curve solution for the purposes of production, aesthetics, and marketing. If a rider’s optimum solution for a particular frame is a 140mm length x - 17 degree stem x 40cm wide bars and the manufacturer doesn’t make this combination of attributes in a bar, then compromises are made. It’s ironic that the more expensive bikes get, often they are less accommodating to the individual. This problem can be circumnavigated to some degree by purchasing a custom frame, but custom frames should not be necessary to work around industry convention.

This is not to say that I believe that a bike should be made to fit the rider; there is room for the bike to accommodate the rider and for the rider to optimize function in order to become a proper cyclist. That said, it is common for a rider to have dreadful posture and athletic function. Because modern bicycles are such effective transmitters of metabolic energy into mechanical energy, they do a great job at camouflaging poor technique. Even someone who has an axe swing for a pedal stroke can still manage 48kph on a flat road on a modern bike for some length of time. We do not want to have a bike fit to a rider with poor posture any more than we want to make a crooked tire to install on a crooked wheel.

Back sweep, up sweep

Two characteristics that are quite a benefit to a rider’s posture, stability and efficiency are back sweep and up sweep. These descriptors refer to the orientation of the tops of the bars and would be used during climbing and on easy rides. They will both result in a more neutral, organized shoulder capsule and will result in less auxiliary respiratory muscles being used for support of the torso during riding. A traditional top section with a straight pipe that comes out of the sides of the stem clamp will put the shoulder into internal rotation when a rider grabs this section of the bars with their thumbs over the tops; this destabilizes the shoulder, which is already the least stable joint in the entire body. It also contributes to Upper Cross Syndrome which is a postural outcome of cycling as well as driving a desk. For a good mental snapshot of this, simply think of Mr Burns from the Simpsons. If you are curious to know more about this topic, you might enjoy my podcast on it:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7fFeK5XTYcBcYki8c7CuFr?si=f4ccc7dacc95444f

"Why flat tops are not “more comfortable”

Often riders will tell me about how comfortable their aero road/gravel/whatever bars are when they have a flat aero section on the tops. Unless the saddle to handlebar drop is extreme, this will result in a wrist that held in extension. While there is not a huge amount of weight being carried by the wrists when riding the tops of the handlebars, joint wear and fascial tension is a function of either high force magnitude or duration. This means that riding around with your wrists extended [knuckles are back like you are working the throttle on a motorcycle] will compromise stability in the wrists, elbows and/or shoulders over time and this has downstream implications, potentially all the way to the pedals.

Consider that the myofascial “chains” of the body extend from tip [of the head] to toe, and that tension is needed throughout the body to create effective force, which is a component of power. Also consider that grip strength is a proven predictor of overall strength. Would you pick up a heavy kettlebell or shoot a bow with a bent wrist? Of course not. Why would it be acceptable to ride a bicycle this way?

Why all modern shift levers are too short

Modern shift/brake levers suffer from the same design flaws as handlebars, in that even though they have undergone many changes [namely the integration of shifting mechanisms and hydraulic fluid reservoirs] the levers are basically the same design as on drop bar bikes from the early 1900’s. The problem is that nearly every road rider must change their wrist angle to reach the brakes while riding in the drops, assuming the elbows are not bent to a significant degree. The means that wrist ergonomics must be compromised in order to use the brakes while riding in the drops, unless the rider is in a very low position. In my opinion this is why we see so many riders descending in the hoods, which is inherently less safe than the drops in most cases.

The simple fact is that no road brake lever, regardless of which manufacturer we name, makes a lever that is even close to long enough. If any mountain bike rider who even knew a single thing about descending got on their bike and the lever was not within immediate reach of their first and second fingers, they would adjust the levers before the began the ride. But every single road rider accepts this compromise without thought. The goldfish does not know it swims in water; it has never known any other existence.

What I am really saying is: roadies are goldfish.

This point doesn’t really have much to do with handlebar design, but it goes in the same commentary category.

Some of this effect can be offset by adjusting the brake levers to be closer to the bars. Also, a strategic use of 3M deck tape on the side of the end of the lever can effectively increase the action of the lever by reducing the necessary amount of finger wrap to actuate the brakes.

One other point on brake lever ergonomics: manufacturers are now canting the levers outwards, with the end of the lever being farther outboard than the body. I believe this is in response to the trend to kick levers inwards so that riders can use a faux TT position by resting their forearms on the tops and grabbing the tops of the hoods with their last two fingers. When the lever is angled in at an extreme angle, the canting of the lever outwards allows the brakes to be operated in the drops

Gravel bars: to sweep or what the F

It seems that gravel bikes are maybe finally getting over this trend, but for a while many manufacturers were spec’ing bikes with drop bars with a large amount of flare. Often riders would come to my studio and explain that they didn’t really get it…why are my bars like this? Is it good or bad? What do I do? I feel in most cases a bar with large flare doesn’t really add much to the function of the bar; the drops feel weirdly between road and MTB bars [which is what they are but that doesn’t mean a rider knows how to corner or descend using that position]. I don’t think any potential gains in stability are worth the adaptation, and if anything, modern riders are [theoretically] demonstrating that high level bike handling can happen on very narrow handlebars. See thoughts below on current handlebar and brake lever trends for more opinions.

The other complication with really wide flared bars is that in a peloton, riders tend to know know when their bars extend beyond their hands. This means when they are in the hoods, it is really easy to hit another rider with your drops if they are sticking way out there. If the sweep isn’t gaining you anything on a descent but might put you [or others] on the ground, why keep it?

Mountain bike handlebars: how wide is too wide ?

There has also been a recent trend for really, really wide mountain bike handlebars. This also seems to be waning but may persist in certain circles. Cycling can be fiercely tribalistic. In one parking lot we have Tire A lovers, they have never crashed or had a flat with brand A….in the next lot we have Tire A haters. Every one of them has flatted on the first ride. The individual experience can color a perception of a product or a choice.

Ultra wide mountain bike bars persist because a few individuals applied the “if some is good, more is better” logic and then had a persuasive beer with their buddies. Handlebar width, like all things, should be applied in moderation. Should MTB bars be wider than they were in 1998? Absolutely. Should everyone be riding 840mm? No.

In order to dial in handlebar width, we must consider shoulder posture, shoulder health, rider experience and goals, intended terrain and riding conditions, and overall bike set up.

On this topic: most modern bars do not have enough sweep to have a neutral wrist. See my list of favorite products below for a solution.

The obsession with super narrow handlebars [and weird brake lever angles]

The latest focus in marginal gains thanks to the legacy of Team Sky is the idea that every bike needs to have super narrow handlebars because really narrow bars are always faster than wide bars. When I say always, what I mean is: we assume they are always faster. We don’t know they are always faster.

I think we have to as the question, “What does faster mean”? Maybe the bars are faster on a flat road in a slight headwind, assuming the rider can make a more aerodynamic shape on those narrow bars, and make the same power in that more aerodynamic shape. But what happens when you go around a corner, and the lever arm that is used to drive the tread of the front wheel is shortened? The lever arm I refer to is made by the distance from the hand to the center of the steering tube, which is dictated by bar width.The longer this lever, the more leverage a rider has to influence the contact patch during a corner. This is why mountain bike bars have gotten so wide in the last two decades!

If a rider is a really skilled driver, they may go slightly slower, or be slightly less stable with narrower bars than with wider ones. This could cost them time in a race because of slower cornering, or maybe cause them to crash if the surface is loose or unpredictable. But, if they are in the top 5 or 10% of the bike handlers in the peloton, maybe this slight trade off is acceptable for a lower CdA.

However, if a rider is very strong but in the 25th percentile of their peloton in terms of handling, going to a narrower bar might be a really poor choice. In this case, going to a narrower bar might prove to be problematic if the rider crashes out of the race because they dump it in a corner. If they choose a standard width bar and give up a bit of potential gain on the flats, but are able to chase back on to the leaders following the descent after staying upright, now they have a chance to use their strength to win or place well.

When we say something is “faster” it is often from a reductionistic lens in which we imagine specific conditions that will determine a race outcome. It is easy to forget that a race is made up of hundreds of moments with many skills and abilities contributing to the final outcome. Not just narrow handlebars.

Turning the brake levers in at extreme angles is another modern trend. This is an attempt to make every bike a time trial bike. The irony is: time trials are a dying aspect of the sport…

The drawback to turning the levers in is it compromises hand position when climbing out of the saddle. It pronates the hand, elbow and shoulder which is less stable and also produces less force. In combination with a narrow bar, which also shortens the lever arm, it means the upper body has a disadvantage in counter balancing the force of the legs when riding out of the saddle.

What this means is: bike racers will have even more T-Rex shaped bodies in the future.

Some of my favorite products in the handlebar category:

PRO PLT Ergo carbon: a very nice bar that has some subtle ergonomic features, including upsweep and back sweep.

Coefficient Wave RR/AR: Excellent handlebars, but I am biased as I helped a bit with the design of the RR bar. To hear more, check out this podcast:

https://thegravelride.bike/the-wave-handlebar-and-gravel-fit-with-rick-sutton-and-former-olympian-colby-pearce

SQ Labs 16 degree sweep: this mountain bike bar is my first pick. It comes with a 12 or 16 degree sweep.

runners up:

Zipp SC SL-80: this bar has 3 degrees of back sweep, which isn’t as much as I would like but it is better than nothing.