Talk:Bicycle handlebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Oversized bars

"although other accessories such as computers and brake levers also need to be designed with the thicker bars in mind"

Every oversized bar I have ever seen necks down to a standard size for the mounting of standard brake levers and shifters. Has anyone seen a counter example. The only issue is that the area traditionally used to mount cyclecomputers is often taken up by this diameter change. -AndrewDressel 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I've change it to: "although other accessories such as light or computer brackets also need to be oversized to fit the thicker bars. Standard brake levers can be used as it is only the central section that is oversized". LDHan 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. How about the speculation that stems will only come oversized? I think that might be a stretch. At any rate, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. -AndrewDressel 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, speculation wouldn't be a good idea, I think it's against wiki guidelines isn't it? Anyway Nitto still make stems with standard size clamps. LDHan 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just edited this again; I think all claims about popularity need to be backed up with data. MTB bars have been 25.4 since the 1980s, with 31.8mm being something since at least 2005, but I don't know when they first became popular or original equipment on mass market MTBs. Some data on what the current spread of stem diameters on retail bikes would be nice; maybe it could be worked backwards from market share of specific models.

Merger with triathlon bars

The triathlon bars article does not now and might not ever (it is still a stub after 5 years) have enough material to warrent really its own article. It would make a nice addition to the much larger handlebar article. That would also save having to duplicate or decided how to avoid duplicating the sizing discussion. -AndrewDressel 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"used in conjunction with the rider's balance or center of gravity to steer."

Any idea what this means? -AndrewDressel 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it out. -AndrewDressel 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement is quite an unclear way to explain a technique called "cornering". Basically. whoever wrote that was trying to say that the primary method of steering a bicycle is really leaning into turns, and that moving the handlebars back and forth isn't an effective way of steering at speed. At speed, bandlebars are really just used to stabilize turns, and most real modifications of trajectory are made by adjusting the center of mass of the rider/bicycle (usually by moving the hips). Either way, it's a very difficult concept to explain in few words, especially in one sentence, and shouldn't really be handled in this article. If someone wanted to revise the article to handle the topic, it should really just link to part of the page on Bicycle Dynamics. 71.170.49.122 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a more pertinent segment of the article on Dynamics. 71.170.49.122 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that this is covered extensively in the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article, and in even more detail in the Countersteering article, both articles debunk the idea that shifting body position is somehow superior to turning the handlebars for steering bicycles or motorcycles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I Learned something new today. Thank you! 71.170.49.122 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

North Road

the so called north road handlebars appear to actually be moustache bars turned upside down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.133.76 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are, in fact, a bit wider with a different rise and sweep. See details added to their description. Infamouse (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Titec H-Bar and J-Bar

Titec H-Bar and J-Bar handlebars might be worth mentioning here. They look like a combination between flat straight mountain bike bars and mustache bars. I like the fact that the grip is at 45° to the bike centerline which appears to match the natural angle of the hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5910 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos

This article could really use a pile of photos or other illustrations. I find it really hard to imagine what these different sorts of handlebars might actually look like. Jaddle 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are more than a dozen pictures. Anthony Appleyard moved them all to a gallery at the end of the article on 13:22, 13 June 2007. Maybe a table with two columns could handle the pictures and text side-by-side. -AndrewDressel 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This photo File:Hybrid_handlebar.JPG is used in both "Types" and "Coverings" sections. One should be replaced..--Pozytyv (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to provide a suitable, free replacement for either image. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes and revert

I have reverted recent changes by User_talk:Marco_Gilardetti for these reasons:

1. The groupings seemed unhelpful and inaccurate: drop bars are used for touring, not only racing; flat bars are used on hybrids and road bikes, not only mountain bikes; aerobars are increasingly available as integrated units, not merely as extensions or add-ons.
2. The picture locations inserted a lot of white space. On my lap top, there was more white space than text.
3. The new pair of lead images were at least as much, if not more, about stems than bars.

I understand that reverting can seem harsh, but I saw no simple way to undo the only the changes listed above other than to revert. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

there are indeed many things you can do other than revert:

1 Change the titles and groupings to whatever you like and makes sense. They were grouped even before my edit. If you don't like "drops" being cathegorised under "racing", delete racing and write "road bycicles" or whatever. I agree that some people go to school with a drop bar, but that's still a racing bike event though someone is using it for going to school, and that's a fact. Drop bars are ALL derivatives from racing, as much as flat bars are ALL derivatives from MTB technology. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I already have changed the titles and grouping to what makes sense to me: initially by contributing to the article, then by the most efficient method available to me, and now again by carefully deleting each character that I think is unnecessary. I see no reason to categorize handlebars further, let alone categorize them based on their historical origins. How might that help a reader, especially if the nature of the categorization is not explained? Cyclists find the same handlebar useful on a variety of bicycles and for a variety of purposes, and manufacturers eventually follow those trends. Instead, a history section that explains the origin of the various times might be useful.

Second, good luck finding a reliable source that will confirm either of your blanket claims about all handlebars. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2 Sorry for your laptop. That's the standard way on WK for having images not overlapping among paragraphs. You can add text, or delete the "clear" tags if you want. It's easy. It can be done with few keystrokes with the find & replace function of any browser. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, you should check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Resolution. It is not just my laptop that is a concern. I only mentioned it to be specific.

Second, the suggestion to add text merely to make the pictures fit or to fill white space is pretty funny.

Third, I believe you are mistaken about "any browser". The two browsers I have installed, Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer, which together currently account for more than 65% of the entire market, do not offer a find and replace function. In fact Glen Murphy, the Design Lead for Google Chrome writes, in response to a question about such a function "Not in Chrome as it ships - generally we stay away from providing editing tools that the sites could provide, since they know what they're doing and can customize their tools to their needs." It is probably best not to assume what other editors can do easily. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

3 Choose other images of your choice on Commons that could represent all the types of handlebars as a whole and could replace the bunch of handlebars' pictures present before, that look awful and are addressed later in the article. The point about the stems is a poor one: a bike's handlebar has always a stem, and quite obviously stems are also addressed in the article. Images are taken from the corresponding German page, and nobody seems to complain there. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, "awful" is in the eye of the beholder. I think the images that are more about stems than handlebars are awful for this article. That's why I have removed them, again. Instead, the images that were in place in this article have been there for years and nobody did complain until just this week. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that reverting a 2480 letters edit is a very harsh and unrespectful thing to do towards other people work. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there are plenty of things that can be done beside reverting, but I am under no obligation to do them. Reverting is no more disrespectful than is making bold changes. If I feel that the article is significantly worse after an edit, and I don't have the time nor inclination to crawl through all the changes in order to salvage what might be an improvement, I may simply revert all of it. Counting characters is a poor way to judge progress. Finally, please focus your edit summaries on explaining what you changed and why. Comments such as "How a -2480 letters edit may be considered a "progress" for the page is hard to understand: discuss your points in the Talk page" do neither. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, I see that you have put your "private property" sign on this voice and that you are also very disrespectful of other people's efforts, so I see no reason to waste any time on this voice any longer, go figure writing a page on handlebar's history only to see it reverted few minutes after as you did three folds in the past two days. For the very same reason your points, being illogical as responding to your personal taste and resentment and not to established criteria, are very poor. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame that you feel compelled to make such baseless accusations instead of assuming good faith and focusing on just improving the article. The claim that I exhibit ownership of this article is laughable, I believe, to anyone who takes a glance at the edit history. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see a paper encyclopedia in which the items are listed at random. There are many criteria from which one could choose from - timeline, diffusion, sales figure, importance, dimensions, wheight, whatever - but there is no encyclopedia over the entire world listing items of a kind in random order. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not checked all the encyclopedias in the entire world, so I couldn't make a blanket generalization about them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the cathegories themselves, it seems you've never checked any catalogue so I paste here the first two results of a google search for the words "bicycle handlebar" for your convenience:

http://www.evanscycles.com/categories/components/handlebars

http://www.bicyclestore.com.au/parts/handlebars.html

They are grouped (surprise!) by family type and in both cases flat and riser handlebars fall in the "mtb" (suprise!) cathegory, as well as drops fall in the "road" (surprise!) cathegory, as it is common practice in commerce all over the world since at least two decades. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the categorization used by a commercial catalog may or may not be useful for a Wikipedia article, I find the ones used in both of these examples to be not bad:

• Road
• MTB
• Aero
• BMX
• Track

Why didn't you use either of them? -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also no surprise that the pictures stay always the same: we've seen what happens as soon as anyone tries to change them. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, a quick glance at the article edit history shows that the pictures have remained unchanged for a while simply because no one has changed them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If aerobars are sold as one-piece units I see really no point in displaying them with a picture that clearly portraits a drop with an add-on, and also I wonder for which reason a specific paragraph on the item should be missing. -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point here. Perhaps you do not realize that aerobars can be implemented both as one-piece units and as add-ons or extensions. If you can find a good picture of a one-piece aerobar, please add it. The fact that such a picture is not yet included hardly seems to me like a good reason to group them with bar-ends under add-ons or extensions at the end of the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your personal page on handlebars, and keep patrolling! We don't want anyone to corrupt it, it's so so perfect! -Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly won't need any luck with that. As I have already mentioned, I find it humorous that anyone would suggest, after looking at my contributions, that I consider this or any other page my personal property. I do, however, make regular use of the watchlist functionality provided by Wikipedia to catch and remove vandalism or other unhelpful edits from a long list of articles that I happen to have an interest in. I think that is the intent of that feature.

It appears that you have been taking things personally from your first edit to this page, for which you shouted in the edit summary "EDIT IT!!!" You might benefit from taking a look at WP:RELAX or WP:CALM -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Order of sections

I believe this article would read more clearly if Sections 2 and 3 were swapped, so that "Design", which is brief and to the point, was placed before the much longer and more detailed section called "Types of handlebar". Artwholeflaffer (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worth a try. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

History

There's not very much actual history there. For example, when was the drop handlebar invented? Can someone add this to the section and expand to include a timeline of significant developments in handlebars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjashwell (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no mention of Lauterwasser handlebars, which my father told me about, many years ago. Could someone who knows more about such things than I do, please add a mention. Thanks. 86.173.199.29 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean the ones Jack Lauterwasser invented? Dhodges (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

1990's new Moustachè

the so called moustachè handlebars appear to actually be north road (or other old) bars turned upside down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ape Hangers?

Why were "Ape Hangers" regulated? Why all the lobbying? The article reads, effectively, "Because they were popular, some buzzkills were unhappy that people were having more fun than they were, and had the happy part chopped down." --74.95.88.150 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

...umm, the CPSA of 1972, et al. The "part" on Bicycles is under 16 CFR 1512. Handlebars are under paragraph 1512.6(c). "Handlebars shall allow comfortable and safe control of the bicycle. Handlebar ends shall be ... no more than 16 inches above the seat surface when the seat is in its lowest position and the handlebar ends are in their highest position".

I believe that the fun, happiness and popularity statements may be "original research" to the affect that it might be more fun, downright popular, or even blissful to be alive and healthy, instead of dead or injured from an unsafe product (as sold).

The CPSA applies to the Commerce (sales) of products, (and their testing), but it could be that local laws that control aftermarket changes; (e.g., night-time reflectors come with bikes for safety, yet in some locales, day riders are permitted to remove them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)