Originally Posted by
SnowJob
I like 700+mm bars as well. Except when I'm banging off trees on either side of the trail.
This is my main motivation to stick with bars under 700mm when possible. 30" bars do technically fit between the trees, but I'm more likely to hit one at 15+ mph the wider my bars get.
The most important thing about your bars is that they have a width that you are comfortable with and that works for what you want to do with the bike. I wrote this a few weeks ago "somewhere else".
Reach is a factor of 3 things: effective top tube length, bar width, stem length (and angle). But only one of those, stem length, has a significant impact on weight distribution when you are comparing two different frame sizes of the same bike.
How much reach you need depends on your body and your riding posture. On a road bike when you're nose down ass up for hours, you better have your reach, saddle position, cleat position, all nailed down perfectly. Dialing in fit isn't as critical, or even as feasible, on a MTB compared to a road bike because you alter your body position so often on a MTB.
I for one don't see the advantage in ultra-wide handlebars in and of itself, but I do see the value in tuning weight distribution with stem length and then using wider or narrower bars as appropriate to dial in reach for better comfort in the saddle and/or better ability to get back on the back for steep descents. If you can't lift the front wheel of your bike easily enough, use a shorter stem. If you feel like you're going to loop out when doing steep climbs in the saddle, use a longer stem.
I don't think most people pay enough attention to their static weight distribution on the bike. Trying to properly manage your dynamic weight distribution is tougher when you start with your weight too far forward or rearward.