Narrowing the bars on a 29er MTB

[AC43]

Back in January I replaced my much-loved but broken Diamondback steel hard tail with a Trek Cobia 29er.

Although I still miss the twangy Diamondback steel frame everything else on the Trek represents a big step forward EXCEPT for the wide bars preventing me for slipping through gaps in London traffic that I'd routinely been taking for 20 years.

So yesterday I asked the LBS to chop a couple of inches of the bars when it was in for a service. Much muttering about "loss of control" and "less comfort" from the bike shop but I prevailed.

It's the best £10 I've spent in a long time as (a) I can once again fit through normal gaps in the traffic and (b) the steering is much much faster. In fact it has transformed the whole feel of the bike. Before it frankly felt like it just didn't want to turn sometimes and more than once I've felt like I was about to run out of road when trying to do a left-right-left jink whilst carry a bit of speed. I was resigned to the fact that it probably had something to do with the geometry/long wheelbase/wheel size and that I'd forever lost the nimbleness of my beloved old Diamondback.

But no. All it needed was narrower bars. Result!

[megaphone]

Took a half an inch off each side of mine (although I managed to do it myself!) mine where 650mm and too wide. I look at some of the 29er bikes and they have stupidly wide bars, must be 700mm plus??

[shouldbworking]

So what you're saying is that a mountain bike isn't the ideal tool for slipping through london traffic? shocking...

[yellowjack]

[AC43]

shouldbworking said:

So what you're saying is that a mountain bike isn't the ideal tool for slipping through london traffic? shocking...

Well it is now.

I do 1500-2000 miles a year in London and a mountain bike is my preference. Tough, impervious, to all but the worst road surfaces, virtually puncture-proof and perfect for hopping over kerbs, traffic islands and so on. The riding position, esp on a 29er, is high so it's good for seeing and being seen and the flat bars mean glancing over your shoulder is quick and easy. Yes it's harder to ride than the equivalent hybrid but I'm doing this as much to keep fit as anything so that's a good thing for me.

My point was that 29's have stupid handlebars. Which they do. Or, in my case, did.

[AC43]

megaphone said:

Took a half an inch off each side of mine (although I managed to do it myself!) mine where 650mm and too wide.

It's not hard but just though that for price of a couple of pints I could get mine done for me at the same time as the service

megaphone said:

I look at some of the 29er bikes and they have stupidly wide bars, must be 700mm plus??

It's very odd. It's like they've seen a kid's Raleigh Grifter and scaled it up.

I can't understand the benefit.

The faster steering makes it way more manoeuvrable to me.

[AC43]

shouldbworking said:

So what you're saying is that a mountain bike isn't the ideal tool for slipping through london traffic? shocking...

Out of interest what would you choose to do 1500+ miles across London every day? Zones 1 and 2 only.

[Magic919]

Who does 1500 miles a day?

[Rocksteadyeddie]

AC43 said:

shouldbworking said:

So what you're saying is that a mountain bike isn't the ideal tool for slipping through london traffic? shocking...

Out of interest what would you choose to do 1500+ miles across London every day? Zones 1 and 2 only.

Good mileage every day that. You should think about racing.

[AC43]

Magic919 said:

Who does 1500 miles a day?

Not me on a mountain bike. That's for sure.

[Magic919]

Maybe it's Dizee in training.

[AC43]

...but I am interested in why people seem to have discounted MTB's as city commuting tools over recent years.

When they first appeared (late 80's, early 90's) MTB's were pretty much the tool of choice for urban use.

Now people seem to have gone more in the direction of hybrids (which I can understand) and roadies (which I can't).

Maybe it's down to fashion/marketing/recent UK success in cycle sport?

And for all the roadie fans here do you predominantly use them in the countryside (which I understand) or the city (which doesn't make too much sense to me).



Thoughts?

Edited by AC43 on Thursday 5th June 10:58

[Frik]

Are they not wider to give you more leverage to turn the wheel?

[sjg]

AC43 said:

My point was that 29's have stupid handlebars. Which they do. Or, in my case, did.

For that kind of riding, yes. I like the whole shorter stem / wider bars thing for off-road (and it's not just 29ers).

Rode a mid-90s MTB recently and very glad the 120+mm stems and narrow bars days are well behind us.

edit: re suitability - that was a time when MTBs were fashionable (and the old-style "racer" deeply unfashionable) and they got sold for everything, regardless of use. We've got more diverse since.

Personally, a decent hybrid, with full-length mudguards and pannier rack would be my choice. MTB gearing is a bit too low on slicks, and a bit overbuilt for that use too.

Edited by sjg on Thursday 5th June 11:06

[upsidedownmark]

They're wide to give you leverage and control, which is relevant if you're using it for what it was intended.. less so in london traffic.

As to why - I reckon when mountainbikes first came out, they were less specialised, nowadays they're a very specific tool, and we have better tools for the urban environment (i.e. flat bar road / hybrid type bikes). Road bike for commuting - well, I have one, and I like riding it. It's fast, and rolls easily - why not? (actually I don't cycle commute, but I know which of my bikes I'd rather ride, provided I had somewhere safe to leave it.)

As to hopping up and down kerbs, never felt the need to do that. IMO these 'chameleon' types who think it's OK to ride on the pavement to get round lights etc deserve to be shot on sight, along with the red light jumpers

[AC43]

Frik said:

Are they not wider to give you more leverage to turn the wheel?

I can only think it's for super-tricky very slow technical stuff. Maybe for the same reason trials bikes have very wide bars (as in the motorised variety)?

But I prefer hopping up kerbs with the narrower ones.

I just don't the wide bars, especially now I see how much faster the bike steers with normal width ones.

[AC43]

sjg said:

AC43 said:

My point was that 29's have stupid handlebars. Which they do. Or, in my case, did.

For that kind of riding, yes. I like the whole shorter stem / wider bars thing for off-road (and it's not just 29ers).

Fair do's

sjg said:

Rode a mid-90s MTB recently and very glad the 120+mm stems and narrow bars days are well behind us.

edit: re suitability - that was a time when MTBs were fashionable (and the old-style "racer" deeply unfashionable) and they got sold for everything, regardless of use. We've got more diverse since.

Actually you're correct. When I was a teenage the whole thing was about what we called "racers". Then MTB's took over completely. "Racers" are now back in fashion, far far more so than ever before.

sjg said:

Personally, a decent hybrid, with full-length mudguards and pannier rack would be my choice. MTB gearing is a bit too low on slicks, and a bit overbuilt for that use too.

Thanks for a well-considered response. Yes, the gearing on my MTB is very low for urban use on slicks. And yes, maybe overbuilt for that use.

Edited by sjg on Thursday 5th June 11:06

[AC43]

upsidedownmark said:

They're wide to give you leverage and control, which is relevant if you're using it for what it was intended.. less so in london traffic.

upsidedownmark said:

As to why - I reckon when mountainbikes first came out, they were less specialised, nowadays they're a very specific tool, and we have better tools for the urban environment (i.e. flat bar road / hybrid type bikes).

Yeah good point - my original MTB (a 1990-ish Trek 810) would probably be classed as a Hybrid in today's language.

upsidedownmark said:

Road bike for commuting - well, I have one, and I like riding it. It's fast, and rolls easily - why not? (actually I don't cycle commute, but I know which of my bikes I'd rather ride, provided I had somewhere safe to leave it.)

Fair point

upsidedownmark said:

As to hopping up and down kerbs, never felt the need to do that. IMO these 'chameleon' types who think it's OK to ride on the pavement to get round lights etc deserve to be shot on sight, along with the red light jumpers

I always stop at red lights and don't make a habit of cycling down pavememts. But sometimes, in gridlock, it's handy to hop up a kerb to (safely) get past a vehicle or two. There are one or two bottlenecks like that on my commute and it's pretty harmless to nip past things. And sometimes safe than trying to squeeze through very narrow gaps. And it's especially satifying when there's one vehicle (deliberately or otherwise) over to one side and it's a case of sitting there for three change of lights or use 12 feet of pavement (when there are no pedestrians).

More to the point I can batter over dropped drain covers, broken tarmac, etc etc without having to swerve wildly from side to side which is what I see other riders doing to avoid this stuff. Personally I'd rather go straight than risk pulling out on a car that's trying to pass me. Front (air) sus is a revelation for this sort of thing.

[shouldbworking]

As above, a flat bar road bike with panniers etc would be my choice.

I think part of the reason mtbs are less suitable now is going to be down to head angles, Typical 90s mountain bikes were sporting 70+ degree head angles. Nowadays bikes are coming with considerably slacker head angles, combined with wider bars and shorter stems to give a very different feel.

[joema]

Depends on the type of commute though. If its town to town then a road bike is useful but if its mostly urban with a mix of traffic, cycle ways then a road bike will just be a pain