I am looking to replace my older Easton EC90 OS ergo-bars with something with a significantly shorter reach. Easton claims that this bar has an 85mm reach and a 145mm drop, but my measurements with a set of vernier calipers put the actual figure at more like 100mm for the reach (center of bar top to center of drop curve)!

I am currently contemplating several replacement options, including:

1) the new EC90 Equipe Pro OS shallow-drop carbon bar: claimed reach 75mm & 130mm drop.

2) the Deda Newton Shallow: claimed reach 80mm, 135mm drop

3) 3T More OS Carbon: estimated reach 79mm, 139mm drop (the 3T website does not use standard C-C measurements).

Does anyone currently ride any of these bars, or have the opportunity to measure the _actual_ reach/drop dimensions on them?

Also, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the steering precision of my current Eastons, and would be interested to hear from anyone who has tested these bars head to head.
Are the Newtons or 3T Mores significantly stiffer?
Has anyone had the 3T on the scale to see how close it is to its 200g claimed curb weight?

I'd be open to other suggestions should any of you know of other 31.7 OS bars that beat the Eastons on stiffness and still manage to beat the 230g mark.

Quit worrying about a few grams of weight, it won't make a bit of difference in your riding speed.

Quite worrying about the stiffness. How can you tell the difference between a lack of stiffness in the bar from that of the stem or steering tube? All three work together as a system. The idea that an oversize bar could lack stiffness to the point that if affected "steering precision" is silly. At any significant speed a bike is steered with a slight pressure to the bars in the opposite direction you want to turn (countersteering) which causes the bike to lean and turn. If you've ever taken a motorcycle training course it's the first thing you learn. PUSH on the right side of the bars to turn right. It may sound backwards, but that's how it works.

Your measuring technique for the drop and reach must be off. There's no way a manufacturer will be off by as much as your measurements indicate.

Having searched for shorter reach bars myself, I can tell you that there are very few around. I assume you want the short reach bars to avoid using a 10mm shorter stem?

The new Easton Equipe Pro has about a 10mm shorter reach, at 75mm, but it's a round bend, which I wouldn't care for. The Salsa Poco has the shortest reach that I've found (10-15mm shorter), but the bar does have a substantial "ramp down" from the top section to the bend where the brake/shift levers mount. This requires a significant upward rotation of the bars to raise the levers up a level the brake hoods. The resulting angle in the drop section works well for me, but I doubt this is how the bars are really intended to be mounted. The Poco is no available in an OS model. Check out the drawing of the Easton Equipe Pro, it has a significant amount of "ramp down", which would suggest the need for some rotation of the bars.

Last, I would carefully take a diagonal measurement from the tip of your saddle to a repeatable point on each brake hood. Record this measurement and then compare it to the measurement for the new bars, once the brake/shift levers are mounted in the desired position. There is so much variation in the mounting location for the brake/shift levers that you can't just compare the "reach" dimension provided by the manufacturer and assume that the levers will be that much closer.

Here's a picture of the Poco bars mounted on one of my bikes.

http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/421571459/0.jpg

Check out the drawing of the Easton Equipe Pro. It has a significant amount of "ramp down", which would suggest the need for some rotation of the bars.

http://www.eastonbike.com/COMPONENTS/bar.road.ec90-equipe.html

http://www.salsacycles.com/comps_handlebars.html

Check your PMs.

And I agree with C-40 in that you should have a bar that fits over one that saves every last gram.

C-40, I've seen you really help a lot of people by giving them good fit advice on this forum, so I'm going to overlook the condescension in your post and try boil this thread down to the key issues so that it can serve as a useful document for riders with similar needs.

Should anyone else out there have pertinent reach data or reports based on actual hands-on experience with these particular short-reach bars or any other comparable products, I'd really appreciate your input.

I am trying to duplicate a riding position I have honed over 20 years of riding and racing on a new _climbing bike_. This bike was built for two reasons: to be light and climb fast, so if at all possible I'd like to replace my original EC90s with a bar that offers the best combination of fit, performance, and weight _in that order_ (I'm well aware there are trade-offs, I just want to be well informed before I sink $200 or more into a new bar!).

I have duplicated my saddle-over-BB, saddle-to-bar-top drop, and saddle-to-bar-top reach positions on my new bike down to a millimeter or two, but given the _abnormally long_ reach of the EC90s, my saddle-to-hood measurement is _at least_ 20mm longer on the new bike than on my old ride with a set of Salsa Short & Shallows -- a bar with an official reach of 82mm that does indeed actually measure out to exactly 82mm!

I've measured the reach on my old EC90s over a half-dozen times using spirit levels as straight edges and my measurements consistently ranged between 95 and 100mm. As for Easton's 85mm claim, either they have cheated and not given a true measurement from center-of-bar-top to center-of-bar at the outermost curve of the drops, or I was given a false spec over the phone. Since Easton's website does not list the exact reach and drop dimensions on the original EC90 ergo (which they still produce, albeit only in a 26mm version), I tried to call Veltec/Easton for concrete info on exactly how much the geometry of the new Pro & Ergo versions of the EC90 Equipe bar had changed vis-a-vis the old design. The 85mm drop / 145mm reach spec their customer service guy gave after a considerable amount of digging around sounds suspiciously like the measurements for the new Equipe Ergo bar, so my guess is that he simply assumed the two are identical or just gave up looking and gave me his best guess.

Since I want to keep my bar tops exactly where they are, I need a new bar with a shorter reach than my old EC90s. On paper at least, the new Equipe Pro appears to be the perfect fit, but since I'm now a bit leery of Easton's nominal measurements, I've decided to post and ask for the help of current Equipe Pro owners who might have the time and inclination to eyeball their current bars with the aid of a set of vernier calipers or even a simple metric ruler and confirm or rectify Easton's nominal 75mm reach spec.

As for the stiffness of a given set of bars as it pertains to steering and performance, have you ever ridden the original EC90s? The OS section only marginally increases the stiffness of the center section of these bars over the 26mm version. From the hoods downwards, these are the softest bars I have ever ridden -- they are even less stiff than my super-compliant 26mm Salsas, which in their turn are far more flexy than the old 26mm Cinelli crit bars I have on another bike. OS simply isn't the whole story. The OS section of a bar is typically only 4 inches long and from there on out, the bars have a conventional cross section. As the 3mm wall thickness of my brutally-unforgiving old Cinellis prove, wall thickness plays at least as important a role as the bar's cross section.

Flex in a bar, and the subsequent loss of road feel and precision in steering response, is indeed something you can get used to and compensate for, but since my TCR composite already has a rather compliant wheelset & fork, I would like to get a bar with a little more backbone than my current setup -- provided this can be reconciled with the best possible fit!

My questions on the weight, dimensions, and perceived stiffness of the 3T More Carbon bar in particular still stand. Any and all specific input would be appreciated.

I have looked for nearly 3 months. Not a single online source carries them. I have tried all the usual suspects. 3 LBS's in my town can't get their hands on them. According to QBP, they are not supplied to the US. No European sources have them either. For traditional bend, you either have the Deda 215 or the Ritchey WCS. Neither are 31.8, however. Too bad. The Eastons, IMO, definitely have a deeper drop than other anatomics.

Since you're so concerned about stiffness, why not just use a shorter stem? Bound to be stiffer.

The only reason I chose short reach bars was purely asthetic. On one frame I thought I might need a 90mm stem, which is just too stubby for my tastes. More careful measurement has shown that both of my frames fit closest to the same with 110mm stems, and the short reach bars, so I could switch to 100mm stems and "normal" reach bars, greatly expanding my choices. Right now, I happy with the Poco bars.

I have looked for nearly 3 months. Not a single online source carries them. I have tried all the usual suspects. 3 LBS's in my town can't get their hands on them. According to QBP, they are not supplied to the US. No European sources have them either. For traditional bend, you either have the Deda 215 or the Ritchey WCS. Neither are 31.8, however. Too bad. The Eastons, IMO, definitely have a deeper drop than other anatomics.

E-mail Brian at Chamion Cyclist @ brian@championcyclist.com

I ordered my Deda Newton Shallow drop bars and Newton OS stem from him. Great guy. I should get them on Monday.

I haven't used them before, but you could look into Bontrager OS bars. Both the carbon (Race X Lite) and aluminum (Race Lite OS) are at the numbers you are looking for as far as reach and weight. I don't know about stiffness I haven't used them, but you could look into them or ask around.

double post, sorry.

For what it's worth, I've got the Bontrager OS bars (aluminum not carbon), and they feel quite stiff enough for me. Only thing I have to compare them to is old Cinelli stuff, but they feel fine. Now I just need to get used to this anatomical shape thing!

3T Biomorph. The 3T biomorph according to Total Cycling has the shortest D/R of any bar available.
I have been looking at this bar myself and would be interested to know if there are other sources besides Total Cycling (140 euros + ship)
The biomorph looks very interesting, but seems very difficult to find in the U.S. and $300 from Total Cycling all said and done.

>Since I want to keep my bar tops exactly where they are, I need a new bar with a shorter >reach than my old EC90s.

I've got the reach to bar tops perfectly dialed in and I like the feel and leverage of 110-120mm stems (currently using a 110mm).

Interesting suggestion -- this looks to be a European model: I could only find info on it on the Italian side of 3ttt.com!

3T uses rather weird parameters for their reach and drop measurements -- effectively outside-to-outside measurements, which are rather difficult to convert to conventional center-center measurements given the non-round nature of bars like the More and the Biomorphe.

I believe you mean 140 GBP, not Euros, by the way (Euros currently trade 1.29/dollar).
$300 is a lot of coin for a first-in-the-line-of-fire component like a handlebar!

That's about 2 pair of Eastons or 4 pair of Newtons at current street prices.
I'd be interested to read your impressions if you decide to take the plunge though...

It's a common misconception the "feel and leverage" would be different with a 10mm shorter stem and the longer reach bar. This is inaccurate. The "steering arm" length is a straight line from the point of contact on the bar or brake hood to the center of the steerer. The only time it would make any difference is when the hands are on the top of the bars and the reach of the bar does not come into play. Otherwise, it makes no difference how you get the brake hoods out to the same place.

In the most common brake hood and drop positions, a 10mm change in stem length makes less than a 4% change in the length of the steering arm. FWIW, I rode two Look bikes last year with identical steering geometry, but one had a 100mm stem and the other had a 110mm. I never noticed the difference at all. My rides nearly always include many miles of high speed mountain descents, with lots of hairpin turns and of course, a lot of time on the top of the bar while climbing.

140.00 GBP is correct. I just looked at the Total cycling site again, the drop portion of the Biomorph looks very interesting; there appears to be more room for your hand to open up in the drops where the sharpest curve of the bar is; and their idea of "three fingers" on the bar while braking also seems attractive. Also, the "hook" at the very end of the bar looks great for high speed security.
I am seriously considering these bars, because last summer I had a somewhat severe Ulnar nerve
impingement from Mtn. biking, so, for me, $300 is nothing compared to my hand tingling.
I'm not sure if these will help, but I'm looking to place more weight on the web between the thumb/forefinger, and less on the outside edge of the palm. I spend alot of time in the drops during long, long mtn. descents, and my Winwood bars are not quite right.
The Winwood/IRD/Stella Azz. Tirrenno are (I think) exactly the same. The feature I dislike about them is the 1cm or more slope (downward) from the clamp to the elbow. If the tops were level, I could run a cm less spacers.
I just recieved a pair of the "XRP" bars for my friend and they seem absolutely identical to the Winwood AND they were only $94.00...(go figure) They sold out quickley from bikesdirect.com
after they were mentioned on this forum.
BTW, the xrp/stella/ird/winwood have a short D/R.

Once again, my bar tops need to stay exactly where I've got them, ergo (no pun intended) no stem length change!

I'll grant you that since most critical maneuvers are _not_ ridden from the bar tops, you are definitely right on the money about the steering arm being a sum of both parts.

I'll also concede that my thinking about stem length has undoubtedly been influenced by the significant time I've spent riding off road over the years: on an MTB, even with riser bars, stem length is pretty much the first and last word in the leverage equation.

That said, there are quite a few road bar configurations on the market, and as I've been shopping around recently, I've noticed that some bars have flat sections in the drops that come back much further beyond the plane of the bar tops than others, so the extent to which you sprint, descend, etc. _all the way_ down in the drops is going to play a factor as well. Cumulative reach-to-levers, in other words, is not the last word in steering leverage.

For those interested in where this thread is going in terms of my choice of a short-reach bar, I;ve ordered the Easton Equipe Pro for its combination of the shortest possible reach and drop. I'll follow up with a post on the actual measurements on these bars, plus a ride-report on whether this new design with its shorter & tighter geometry actually improves on the original ergo EC90s overly-compliant performance.

As promised, here is my follow-up on the new OS EC90 Equipes, complete with a ride report.

As fate would have it, I originally ordered a new pair of the non-ergo, short-reach EC90 Equipe Pros, but received a set of ergo EC90 Equipes in the mail by accident.

This was a happy accident of sorts, because it gave me an opportunity to weigh, measure, and do some (decidedly non-scientific) "flex testing" on BOTH the new ergo Equipes AND the non-ergo Equipe Pros that I eventually received as a replacement. I was then able to directly compare the results with those of my old (pre-Equipe) EC90 OS bars.

My actual measurements revealed the following differences:
(Figures below are expressed as the average of three measurements, & rounded to the nearest mm or g)
Old EC90 OS bars:
Reach: 90 mm
Drop: 149 mm
Width: 425 mm
Weight: 210 g

EC90 Equipe Ergo:
Reach: 85 mm
Drop: 144 mm
Width: 415 mm
Weight: 236 g

EC90 Equipe Pro:
Reach: 75 mm
Drop: 130 mm
Width: 415 mm
Weight: 208 g

[ For Easton's claimed specs on these bars, go to:
http://www.eastonbike.com/COMPONENTS/comp_bars_road-multi.html ]

As you can see, the reach, drop, and actual width have all _decreased_ significantly between the original EC90 OS bar and the two current OS variants of the EC90.

To the EC90 Pro, which is what I am now riding, the reach decreased by 15mm, the drop by 19mm, the width by 10mm, and the weight by 2g -- all good things in my book, since I was looking to tighten up my cockpit, particularly in terms of reach.

The change in the actual width of Easton's "42cm" bar size (all three bars had the same nominal size) is an interesting development. I suspect that this change was primarily intended to shave some weight off the bars and make them a bit stiffer, since the 31.7mm bulge section at the center of the bars hasn't appreciably changed, but you've now got 5mm less standard-gauge (24mm) bar top tubing on each side of the bar.

Also noteworthy is the major weight discrepancy between the Equipe Ergo and the Equipe Pro, with the former coming in a good 36g over Easton's claimed weight. Of course it stands to reason that being longer and deeper in the drops, these bars would weigh more, but I just thought I'd throw this in as a caveat: after all, at 236g, you can simply buy a set of Deda Newtons and save yourself a cool $100 on the purchase price!

As for the riding performance, there was a MARKED difference in stiffness between the new EC90 Equipe bars and my old EC90s, both in my non-scientific "bow-flex" test off the bike (grab the drops and squeeze those pecs!) and after I'd mounted and ridden them. Since I had to return the ergo version of the Equipes in their original, unmounted condition, the following ride report will only refer to the month of testing I've put in on the Equipe Pros:

While I was mainly replacing my old EC90s to shorten the reach on my TCR Composite, this change has also had the (pleasantly!) unexpected result of _significantly_ increasing the handling precision of my ride! In the past, my only complaint with my TCR was its vague steering response. Since the front-end component choices on this 15 lb climbing rig aren't nearly as burly as on my 20 lb training bike (24-spoke Speed Dream FW, TCR carbon fork, Newton OS stem _VS._ 32 spoke DA/Open Pros, Columbus steel fork & Control Tech Stem), I assumed the sensation of "wheel flop" I experienced – e.g. when swinging wide to set up for turns – could possibly be alleviated by stiffer bars, but I didn’t expect the improvement to be as dramatic as I experienced!

By replacing my flexy, old ergo EC90s with the shorter, tighter, and stiffer EC90 Pros this phantom "wheel flop" has disappeared! My steering is now far more precise and predictable - especially from the drops, which I now use much more frequently because they're now a good 19mm higher than with my previous setup!

My conclusion? While I'm typically very leery of manufacturers’ claims of technological "progress", Easton has definitely done their homework and made major improvements to their carbon road bar design! From the "nanotubes" up, the EC90 Equipe Pro is a totally different beast than the original EC90s. While I've had major issues with defective Easton seatposts over the years (run a keyword search for my other comments/reviews), I've owned over four different models of their road and MTB bars without a single warranty issue, so FWIW I give their bars my qualified quality endorsement as well!

At any rate, I hope that this mix of personal experience with objective measurements will be of use to others out there with similar fit / performance concerns!

I bought the BioMorphe bars from Total Cycling for my new rig. You're correct about price and lack of availability in USA. Price is outrageous, but worth every penny in my opinion. Only down side to the bars is sprinting with the hands in the hooks while standing. Very little room. If you stand and sprint with hands on the end of the drops there is clearance.

I'm so happy with them I just ordered another for my other bike. I now spend more time in the drops because its not uncomfortable. The indentation on the tops where I position my hands to drape the hoods is perfect.

140.00 GBP is correct. I just looked at the Total cycling site again, the drop portion of the Biomorph looks very interesting; there appears to be more room for your hand to open up in the drops where the sharpest curve of the bar is; and their idea of "three fingers" on the bar while braking also seems attractive. Also, the "hook" at the very end of the bar looks great for high speed security.
I am seriously considering these bars, because last summer I had a somewhat severe Ulnar nerve
impingement from Mtn. biking, so, for me, $300 is nothing compared to my hand tingling.
I'm not sure if these will help, but I'm looking to place more weight on the web between the thumb/forefinger, and less on the outside edge of the palm. I spend alot of time in the drops during long, long mtn. descents, and my Winwood bars are not quite right.
The Winwood/IRD/Stella Azz. Tirrenno are (I think) exactly the same. The feature I dislike about them is the 1cm or more slope (downward) from the clamp to the elbow. If the tops were level, I could run a cm less spacers.
I just recieved a pair of the "XRP" bars for my friend and they seem absolutely identical to the Winwood AND they were only $94.00...(go figure) They sold out quickley from bikesdirect.com
after they were mentioned on this forum.
BTW, the xrp/stella/ird/winwood have a short D/R.

I have found the ttt BIOMORPHE at Holland Cycles in Spring Valley, CA
call: 619 469-1772