My understanding is that it was, for example Shimano bars are measured c-c.

btw my suit size is 40 short I think, for rpenmanparker's study :)

So far I'm golden within a cm or so. Not bad for a rule I totally pulled out of my a$$. I wouldn't tell anyone what bar they've gotta ride, but my rule looks good for a starting point for someone who doesn't know what to pick. I can't quite figure how it would work for women though. Not sure I want to go there IYKWIM.

The bump(s) on your shoulders...a couple of inches inside of your delt...called the acromion process. You have one on each shoulder. Get someone to measure between these two points.

That's your bar width. That's the center to center width. When looking for a handlebar, know how the manufacturer measures. Some are outside to outside.

In the 80's narrow bars were really popular; part of the aero kick they had going back then. I've got handlebars taken off 80's frames that are 36 c-c; way too small for me.

My jacket size is 42R; 42 c-c bars are what I have on my road bikes. I may well try some 44cm bars on my next build.

Yet another anecdotal correlation with rpenmanparker's "rule".

If the bars on a road bike weren't such a pain to swap out...more people would probably experiment more.

I use a 42cm c-to-c Easton bar for almost 3 years...then I switched to a 40cm o-to-o Zipp bar.

I discovered that a narrower bar felt a lot more comfortable on a random test ride on a BMC.

Mountain bike bars a so simple to swap out...especially if you got lock on grips.

Since the “rule” equating the distance around a rider’s chest measured in inches (jacket size) with the width of a handlebar measured in centimeters came along after the fad to move to wider bars was in full swing, it was/is just a way to justify using wider bars. And, like many myths, it had/has the appearance of truth because it involves numbers and sounds scientific.

If we are to discuss the pros and cons of using wider or narrower handlebars, can we please move beyond this meaningless "rule"? Too many riders are being pressured into using handlebars that are not the best fit for them because of this myth.

Qft.

Ignore what the pro use in this instance. They are freaks of nature and freaks in general.

44 and 44' add me, too

Suit jacket = 42L or 42 Extra Long. 46cm bars are uncomfortable-- everything else from 38-44 seems fine. Casual road rider.

Although I've been racing consistently for 30+ years, although I was in the bike biz for 15+ years, I'd never heard of this "rule" until now. I think this "rule" came into effect pretty much in this thread, at least in terms of widely sharing it. It's not a "rule", just a correlation observation, as rpenmanparker pointed out. If anyone ("too many people") changed their bar due to this rule I'd be curious who did (as I'm sure rpenmanparker would be too).

Here are just a couple of examples of people discussing this "rule" prior to this thread:



http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in.../t-401088.html

s4one 03-26-08 04:30 AM

I'm to lazy to try and measrure my shoulders but just by comparing to the width of my handle bars I would say I have 44cm shoulders and 42 cm bars.

Just go by the suit size you wear, unless you never worn a suit.





http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum...ize-32001.html

jamaris 03-11-13

handlebar width and suit jacket size


Just wondering if you notice any correlation of the suit size you wear (or would wear, if you wore a suit) to your handlebar width?

(and of course there is "no right answer" to this question).

I wear a 38 width suit generally, but generally settle on 40 (c-c) handlebars.

Thoughts?

You guys can really tell the difference in 1/2 to 1 inch in bar width? Also, how would one get a new bar? How much do they cost? I have a lot to learn, obviously. I think the bars on my bike are pretty wide and would consider getting something slightly narrower, but I don't even know if I would feel the difference. Since my frame is 58cm I think the bar width is 44cm.

I stand corrected.

An inch is 2 cm, give or take, so it's about one size bar. It's definitely noticeable, especially if you climb off one bike and climb onto another.

For me 1 cm is less noticeable, but since bars are usually made in 2 cm increments it's not like you can get the same bar in 1 cm increments. For example I found that a 41 cm bar was fine, 39 cm felt narrow to me. 40 cm is slightly narrow, 42 cm is slightly wide, 44 cm is really wide (but appealing in its own way). Mind you this is over about 25 years, from about 1988-1989 to now. In the fall/winter my thoughts veer to wider bars for more relaxed riding. In the summer I want narrow ones, optimized for the only thing I can do reasonably well on the bike aka field sprint.

1 cm is within my "tolerance" range. It's sort of like my (effective, i.e. pedal top->saddle top) saddle height - I can tell the difference if I raise/lower the saddle by a few mm, i.e. 2-3 mm. I tend to raise it a bit in the spring, then lower it in the fall, all over about a 5 mm range. That's my "tolerance" range for saddle height.

Right you are. Maybe I am not first to think of this, but hey, I'm just having a little fun with it, goofy pseudo-science and all. Naturally, this rule would break down for someone not fit enough for his chest size to define his jacket size. If the waist size or hip size dictates what size jacket you wear, because you need clearance in those areas, of course you will lose the correlation to the bar width. And as I said, I don't know how breast mass would skew a woman's chest measurement away from the correlation to shoulder width. But WTH, for something I just noticed incidentally, I think it is neat that the correlation holds up pretty well. And just like in KOPS, seat height, reach, etc, there are no hard and fast rules, but why not use this as a starting point. It is a lot easier to determine that the distance between two bony spots on the shoulders.