+1

Plus they cost a lot of money for that increased risk of it cracking on you, and I've seen bars break in person so I can testify how unpleasant an experience that can be. Granted he should have checked them after the crash he had, which we recommended but he didn't and down he went. Carbon will be fine for regular use but I agree that if you're racing where crashing is more a matter of when than if, I would go with something less prone to detonating.

Jorge, you know, it's a good thing you had a back up WCS classic. I was bidding on one on ebay yesterday, and i don't think it would have been anywhere as good of a deal had i had competition .

I've got the FSA alum Omegas and the FSA Carbon K-Force Compact and Easton Carbon EC90 SLX3. The compacts do make a big difference with the shorter drop and reach. It is as Andy says, it's like dropping into them. Longest I've done on the K-Force is 70 miles and it was really comfy. Get the Omegas for ~$40. If you go carbon, get them on Ebay for cheap. The Eastons are nice because the tops are round which is better for bigger hands. I'm big and the K-Force does not flex, definitely reduces vibration and looks hot. Carbon has a place in non-racing situations. GL

All of these compact bars are marketed as "short reach" and most compact bars have either 75mm or 80mm reach, but the standard bars I have on my bike right now are 78mm reach and most standard bars I look at have 80mm reach so I'm a bit confused. Is the "short reach" aspect of compact bars a complete misnomer or am I missing something here? I am purposefully looking for some bars with a short reach and I thought that compact bars would be perfect but it appears they are no better than standard?

i think...that short reach refers to the bend on the front of the bar, positioning the bar closer to the lever. But that is just what I assumed...

On competitive cyclist they say short reach prevents forearm bruises when on the hoods so I assume the reach refers to the horizontal length of the bar measured in some sort of standardized(?) manner.

are people really getting forearm bruises? if so, have they really just been waiting for a company to invent a bar that's 10mm shorter to solve the problem?

after viewing a bunch of Competitive Cyclist review videos, i've gotten a sense of their sales pitch. they definitely have it refined.
some dude who appears to be a "serious cyclist" shows off some new product and describes it as if it is the greatest advance yet achieved by science. If you don't own it, everyone else will think you're a Fred and you will be uncomfortable and slow. How did we ever ride bikes before this product? Who knows, but thank god __________ invented this one, because now we're set. See how i hold it and its in the shape of my hands? this company just thought of that. amazing!

They also mix in a little anecdotal advertising when the guy says "i use this on my personal bike." They know that anecdotes are powerful sellers even if they are poor predictors of whether something will work for a buyer.

I'm guessing the truth of the matter is that companies want more SKUs to sell, but don't always have NEW products. Such appears to be the case with "compact" handlebars. So let's take a handlebar, make it smaller, refer to the old one as "traditional" and talk about how ergo bars suck and these are truly comfortable. or maybe they're a way to accommodate older riders with poor flexibility who want to flip their stems to look pro.

i don't mean to be overly sarcastic, and i don't have a problem with these products. if they work for people, people should use them.
i just hate being marketed to - you get the sense that the company thinks they're smarter than you. what i'd really like to know is if anyone remembers the advertising when ergo bars first started showing up. were those the marketed as the greatest thing ever?