This a million times, straight to the point. Liked and subscribed

Yes please. Interested in that too myself

I went to 165mm from 172.5 and felt less strain in my hips. But there are other performance benefits to shorter cranks as well

@@robertchandler587 that’s interesting. I went from 172.5 to 165 and saw my average power meter numbers go up slightly. I attribute that to ease of being able to generate power on a climb with a greater hip angle. My test is far from scientific though. The 165s just also feel better, can spin easier.

@@robertchandler587 oh sorry. I read your reply incorrectly. Yeah, shorter cranks are all the rage. I wonder how short is too short. If 165s are this good, maybe I should try 160s.

I want to try 165’s but trying to find them seems to be tough for road and MTB. Nobody seems to have them in stock to fit my 12 year old Madone or non-Boost gravel bike.

This is very important

Exactly, so narrower but also taller, equalizing the aerodynamic picture.

Have you measured your shoulders? The distance between your acromions (plus 2cm) is probably around 38cm if it feels more natural on that width of bar.

Same here. I have narrow shoulders and 38 is my go-to. Though 36-38 without flare is horrible for sprinting. There's no leverage and the whole thing is super twitchy.

I wouldn't frame it as narrower bars feel more natural. You simply didn't have the correct bar width to match your shoulder width. It's not any different than having your saddle too high-it's all about getting the right fit.

@@ConsciousBreaks makes me think of saddle height and how a few mm can make a world of difference not only in comfort but also in performance.

@@frozenbean well I'm 6"ft and I have measured my shoulder width to be 40,5cm, so I initially rode with 40cm bars, but then I tried 38cm and even 36cm and I like how this somehow naturally lets you fall into a TT Position. Having your Arms in front of your body instead of on your side, just feels more comfortable to me. But I also love the very narrow TT-Position on a TT-Bike maybe that is why.

gay bar's are so much more fun

yeah straight bars suck@@ds6914

​@@ds6914 dude, what?

I recently had a Whisky Components carbon bar come to me on a used bike. A 6° flare, you couldn't tell unless you knew it had a flare, that it was flared. Had to really look at it. But this is what made me switch to having all my levers turned in. And ive even thought about buying more of those Whisky bars with that same flare. I could feel the difference! Soon, I should another one of my bikes, and had the levers turned in.... later that week, he told me he loved what I did with the bars, and raved to me about how comfortable it was! This was back in 2022, right about when we saw this becoming normal in the pro peloton, but way before anyone else was really mentioning it. Ride on my friend! Happy riding!

@@tygrewesterfield841 more fun than straight bars

Glad it was helpful!

makes you wanna race though

i’d be interested at looking at the effects on your wrists, too. I know mine only like a littttle bit of bend in compared to some of these guys.

knock knock

@@swunson who dat

I mean, there’s so many variables at play with this…..

completely agree

I don't think there is, based on Jan-Willem van Schip. He's a Dutch track cyclist (2x world champion). Even at his size (6'4", 185), he rides with 30 cm bars even in road races and would go lower but for UCI rules. He's a known aero nut, he must've tested it out and found the speed difference outweights the uncomfortability. He's a professional though. I don't think your average amateur club rider really needs to ride on such monstrosities...

My guess based on my own experience is you would find narrower to be a lot more comfortable. I'm really glad a bike fitter here suggested it.

How do you see 300W delivered to the crank be different from 300W delivered to the crank? The only difference there might be the feel or maybe marginal increase in cornering pedaling clearence, which is not really quantifiable

@@user-qy8ph8tf3d more people are realizing that shorter cranks allows them to more comfortably pedal at a higher cadence, which is more efficient and transfers the effort from your legs to your heart. crank length on most bikes are a little too big imo. not sure how NorCal cycling would test this tho..

I've always ran 172.5 cranks for about thirty years, started doing more aero rides as I can get pretty low and still make power over a longer period of time, tried 165mm cranks and then finally went to 152mm cranks. I can go for quite a while in an aero position on the 152's. There are trade offs for sure but I wouldn't go back, but then again I'm fifty years old so anything that's easier on the hips I like lol

@@SouthernRotors How tall are you? 152mm sounds a bit extreme for me

pedal clearance and cornering ability is what makes shorter cranks the better option, at least for me.

Yeah back then the bikes had super narrow bars with extra long stems😂

Maybe the new formula for fit is handlebar width should be twice crank arm length, e.g. if running 170mm crank arms, handlebars should be 34 cm, if 160mm cranks, 32 cm handlebars. Seems correct, at least for track bikes, crit bikes should be similar...@@anthonyharris483

Yep, I think it would be a fairly simple argument to say that no conclusion can be made with the test as is. Statistically, it would probably be safer to speculate that there is no discernable difference between the two bars.

I use 46 cm for more lateral stability, comfort is useless if the Gravel terrain makes you fall

The 14:45 label on the time axis is a mistake. It should say 14:36 - Each line is about 11 seconds. The orange box is in the right place though

i’m glad someone else caught this

I have 37cm shoulders and have been running 32.5cm AeroCoach Ornix bars on one bike and 35cm Enve SES Aero bars on another bike. I've gotten used to the AeroCoach bars and the Enves feel like a big yellow schoolbus steering wheel. They key for aero gains is to change your fit accordingly. Per 2cm lost in width, most people should add 1cm in stem length. Tuck your elbows in and make sure the fit doesn't result in the knees+elbow interference at TDC.

I have tested this with Colnago C40 vs Dogma F10.

The big lie-by-ommission with round tubing when they say it is less aero (creates drag behind the tail edge of the tubing) is they never make a comparison between the much broader carbon tubes versus much narrower metal tubes. The GCN "bro science" textbook analysis which they always love to make when they show the little picture of the different tubing shapes and the drag profile it makes basically assumes an equal frontal area, which in real life they are not. I do almost exclusively time trialing (10 mile specialty) and thousands of hours of my data on the same courses daily for over a decade has shown almost no statistical advantage between my preferred trainer (a 1992 Merlin titanium with shallow rims and round 32 spokes) versus several of my brand new carbon aero bikes (all of which have almost identical geometry; all my aero bikes having 60mm carbon rims with low spoke count bladed spokes and integrated cables on all aero bikes. Also, most of my aero bikes have a similar weight to my old titanium, which is another cruel joke the bike industry has played on us all). The time differences between my aero bikes versus my Merlin titanium is within margin of error. You simply could not ever discern any difference using any scientific method when doing real-world testing on the course. It will always be within margin of error of under (+/-) 6 seconds or so over the 10 mile TT's I do. In fact, most of my PR's were made with my Merlin bike. Sadly, the only thing my aero bike consistently gets me that I can say is absolute, is a more nerve racking experience when there are side winds.

@alexjohnson6462 interesting. I find my Dogma F10 woth aero wheels on on crosswinds is more stable than my C40 as a package. However, I recently did another test just this past weekend for one last time as all previous tests were so close. The F10 vs C40 have identical fit coordinates, aero shaped 36cm bars, and same 60mm wheels swapped between tests and utilizing same Assioma dual sided PM. My results were on back to back and switching between bikes to limit environmental change. And I did first test with 350 watts on uphill portion from set point to point with 250 watts on down hill, average speed was 26 on C40 and 26.1 on F10. And 2nd test was consistent 300 watts for 10 mins whilst maintaining aero hoods position. F10 was 26.2 mph, and C40 was 25.8mph.

@@alexjohnson6462 According to “bro science” and marketing, a metal frame with round tubes should basically make you go backwards.😁 But they often compare vintage material to modern bikes. Metal frame builders have finally caught up and are offering very clean looking, fully integrated aero cockpits, which has renewed my interest. A direct comparison should be interesting. I suspect that the majority of aerodynamic gains are made at the front and that everything behind the bottles and knees is largely insignificant because of turbulence, at least in the real world. Your testing seems to suggest the same.

@@tommyfreckmann6857 While the C40 is neither metal nor has it round tubes, it is a stunning bike and definitely an interesting one to compare with a more modern bike. So from your test it looks like on the Colnago you’re loosing just under 1 second per kilometer on a flat stretch at 42kph. That’s actually more than I had expected. My hunch was that modern aero bikes, at least in real world turbulent conditions, almost exclusively benefit from their clean front ends, i.e. aero cockpit, wheel and fork.

Imagine being in a breakaway and getting 4 seconds just because of a narrower handlebar. Poor all these riders who were caught by the peloton on the last meters! As long as it does not make you uncomfortable and less aero, I think a narrower handlebar is the best choice for an upgrade.

37 feels weird when i'm out of the saddle climbing, but when i'm sprinting i'm in the drops and these flair to 42 so it feels good

ooh this would be good, test it in the center back pocket of the jersey...THEN test it with the bottle tucked into the jersey like the pros do with their vests or motogp racers aero attachment near the neck..great idea

if your head is that wide, I guess you're a sniper's dream 😂

Thats a great idea! Please test it

For me, I switched to wax not for the efficiency claims but because it makes your drivetrain last longer. According to Zero Friction Cycling's cost to run calculator, I'll save about $70 over 10,000km by switching from the best oil-based lube to a middle of the road wax. Also I run a 3x8 speed drivetrain so parts are pretty cheap. You'll probably save more if you're running modern 11 or 12-speed stuff

@@fleurdelispens my chains last over 15,000km running pure parrafin wax. Super cheap aud$25 for 5kg (used only 1/3 of this in 7 years across 7 bikes). Only use a rag and boiling water to degrease. Saves so much time, cost, and effort. The only pain is degreasing the chain initially (I follow the Friction Facts recommendation of Mineral Turpentine to degrease, and Methlyated Spirits to strip the chain of any remaining turps). The improved chain efficiency is just a bonus. I can ride 300-400km between waxings (depending on dust and water exposure). Edit: I should note I only run 10, 9 and 8 speed chains to 0.75 wear mark on Park Tool chain checker.

@@richardggeorge I bought Silca's super secret wax and their degreaser for the convenience. That bag of wax means I don't even need a crock-pot; just drop the bag in a pot of boiling water. The degreaser also makes chain prep a super simple one-step process.

@@fleurdelispens that sounds very handy! That Silca wax is really expensive here in Australia (20 times more expensive than my paraffin wax and my dedicated slow cooker was only $15 from Kmart). I am tight a$$ though.

If you are doing ITT, But in a peloton it's worth nothing.

@@matmerah3700 You might even get a better "suction" effect with wider bars...