In that case it is time for you to source an F139 and repeat that process :)

Here's a -17 one on an alu frame but you'll get the idea of how slim it is...
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/...96df9e1c_c.jpg

Traditional deep, angular handlebars actually :) (link).

Hey, what now? I missed something here.

Now that I look again, I should have noticed something was up; you've got a threadless headset on the original fork, and IIRC you said you're running an adapter rather than having replaced the steerer... What gives?

Also, nice job polishing the Kalloy Uno, but I tried one of those... flexy as hell, needs about 20g more metal. I had one for the same reason as you; wanted 17°. Swapped it for a Zipp.

So I take it that's a shot of the first and last time you leaned your tyre against a cactus? Did that once myself...

there's a rock between the spines and the tire.

Nice one. Not as dumb as me

:lol:

Unfortunately not. They're 26.0mm. They did the F109 for 31.8mm but those were only made with a 6° angle

Ok, that explains why I never found a better option than the Kalloy Uno for my purposes. I'll see what I can do about blending these stems into the ideal pairing for my headset...Stay tuned ;)

I'm curious why you prefer 31.8mm bars.

When I originally conceived the build for my Trek, the plan was to use all Ritchey Classic components (handlebars, stem, and seatpost) for that matchy-matchy look. I have always had good luck with Ritchey stuff (save for a slightly creaky pairing of some 26mm WCS bars and stem) and liked the curve, reach, and drop of the Classic bars a lot. I followed through with that plan only to later realize that I really disliked the -6° stem angle, hence the switch to the Kalloy. I was tied into the 31.8mm bars at that point and given my past experiences with 26mm bars (albeit limited) and the fact that nearly every new bar is 31.8mm, it seems to make sense to stick with that standard.

Indeed, just like a slim stem slim handlebars look better with a classic steel frame (and 26.0mm bars are not noticeably more flexy)

A 26mm bar that weighs the same as a 31.8mm bar is most definitely more flexible, and IME they're noticeably more flexible unless they're steel or boat anchor thick-walled.

What's more, most 26mm bar/stem combos are flat out hanging onto each other landing off a gutter with your hands on the hoods; it's a totally undercooked spec. With 31.8, you can hammer it like that all day, no problem.

It deserves maximum pimpage; it's freaking sweet.

joejack951 uses a Ritchey Classic handlebar. The 42cm version weighs 301gr. No way is a 26.0mm bar of similar weight too flexible. And the "gutter" all depends on your choice of bars and personal preferences.

Like I said, boat anchor. A 220g ally bar is plenty stiff in 31.8, but sketchy in 26.

The simple fact is 26 is undercooked. How many times BITD have you seen bars that had rotated in the clamp? Quite a few, I bet. It was a spec born when bars were steel.

With a 1980's mid-range steel frame plus steel fork, Shimano 105 parts, Aksium wheels, Kalloy stem and Ritchey bars, I doubt an 80gr weight difference is an issue when picking a new stem and bars ;)

What does BITD mean?

BITD = back in the day

Aha, I still use 26.0 bars (from Schmolke, Syntace, 3ttt and Scott) combined with Syntace F99 and F139 stems I've never had any issues. Back in the day (I suppose he means the 1990's) we had to do with one-bolt clamps instead of the 4-bolt ones used by Syntace (which also have rubber inserts to further enhance friction between bars and stem).

I have a 26mm and 31.8mm version of essentially the same Ritchey WCS bar (~240 grams for each) and riding them back to back sold me on the 'oversize' bars. Whether it is the clamp being more secure or the bars themselves being stiffer or more likely a little of both, I notice a difference and I'm not even that powerful of a cyclist. I do ride a lot of steep hills, though, and don't shy away from standing.

:beer:

Hey, don't pick on my stem ;) That Kalloy Uno stem is one of the lighter options out there. And the conversion headset saves a decent chunk of weight over the other options. Vittoria Corsa G+ tires aren't exactly heavy weights either. The wheels are on there until I build something better. Groupset was picked because of the black levers and brake calipers, and this was never intended to be a truly light bike, mostly a budget-friendly modernized classic frame. The handlebars are heavy, no doubt, but realistically I'm saving 50-60 grams using something else, spending a lot more, and I'd be stuck dealing with figuring out how to get a matching finish.

But if it would appease all the Hot R' Not'ers, perhaps I'll just go find some super light bars and polish/paint the center section to match, build some ultralight wheels, and come up with some other goofy things I can do to cut weight off my mid-range 80's steel frame bike build :)

By all means, your bike deserves to be form over weight! This is "hot or not", not "weightweenies" :)

I was bearing the thread topic in mind with my digression; the idea being that form follows function, and that what works well should look good.

A four-arm crank is a good example; most of us appreciate the traditional aesthetic of a five-arm crank, and when Shimano ditched it, many of us found the new look tough to get used to. But the FC-9000 has definitely grown on me; part of my philosophy regarding such things is to actively integrate functional improvements into my ideas of what looks good. I'm not a fan of arbitrary styling; to my mind the form of a component should be completely dictated by functional considerations, with only the surface finish being an exception.

As such, I'm a fan of what Shimano is doing with anodising these days, and I hope they take it further... I'm not so keen on the odd little asymmetries and styling lines you see on their cranks though. Here's hoping for a less ugly future ;)

I already picked on it :P I have one gathering dust, because it's too light.

How long is yours? Mine is 100mm and plenty stiff enough for steep hills and sprinting.