Riser Bars

[BrightYellow]

Riser Bars... what do they really do for you? I've heard a lot of people talk about them and I've seen them on a lot of bikes. But, I have no idea if they are just a fad, or if they're really good for something. Seems like most of the bikes I've seen them on are freeride/downhill machines... Is there any benefit for XC?

-D

[noise_is_life]

I actually switched from riser bars to a flat bar. I noticed that it was somewhat harder to lift my front wheel, so I guess one benefit of a riser bar is extra leverage. I didn't need the leverage as much as I needed to keep my front wheel down on climbs which is why I made the switch.

[martini]

typically risers offer more width than flat bars do, opening your chest so it easier for you to breath. They also typically have more sweep than flat bars giving a more comfortable position for your wrists. There are a few flat bars out there now that offer both the width and sweep, so the bene's of risers are now mostly cosmetic.

http://www.fox302.com/userdata/martini/files/Photoes/Bars.jpg

The set ups I use are: Surly Torsion bar, 15°x25" Specailized oem thing 9°x25.5" and a Titec Ti Hellion 1" risex9°x26"

[grizzly adam]

It was my understanding that the use of riser bars was to give yourself a slightly more upright position on the bike. When I worked at Erik's we had LOTS of people come in and get rider bars cuz they felt too stretched out or too far forward.
Also, if you look, freeride bikes tend to have a shorter stem for the same reason (I think).

As far as I'm concerned, there's no real bennies of having a riser bar on your XC - unless you think it looks cool or want to be sitting up another 1"-1 1/2".

[grizzly adam]

Martini,

What TREK frame is that and what vintage?

[martini]

Dunno? *shruggin* it was a hand me down. I got it all wrapped in the original paper it came in w/original parts too. It's a fun bike to ride. In winter, it's set up w/fenders and fixxed, summer as you see it. I use it for sommuting and bombing around town on. Gonna send it to Bob Brown and have canti stud brazed on to it this fall so I can use it as 'crosser.

[funky-funky-chicken]

IMHO, Riser bars have seemed to gain in popularity in relation to the reduced availabity of high quality stems with different angles. It used to be that you could easily find stems with different angles of rise and reach. As designs for stems have improved finding stems with different angles has become more difficult. (Not to mention the demise of quill style stems that used to allow for some height adjustment.)

Queue the "Riser Bar."

To be able to get your hands in a more upright (comfortable, less weight on the front wheel, better handling) position and with no adjustability in stems, manufacturers re-introduced the riser bar, something most mountain bikers made fun of years ago.

It is also much easier for manufacturers to produce and dealers to stock one angle of stem in 5 different extensions and bars with two or three different rises than it is to stock 10-15 different stems.

I think that we will continue to see this trend in seat posts and in road bikes too with the gaining popularity of "compact" geometry. Fewer sizes of frames and one angle of stem. Leave it to dealers to swap out seatpost, bars, and stem to come up with a quasi-good-fit. :( I have already seen a Riser-road bar, Yikes.!!

[manual63]

I like riser bars with a crossbar. Why?.......for strength. I have some Bontragers on my Schwinn (XC Ride) and they will probably be moved to my P.2 (Freerider) which has risers with no crossbar. I have had straight bars before, but they all bent on me. Sure, I am hard on bikes, so that may be the reason.

A rise bar gives better control and it doesn't really hurt climbing. I am learning that climbing is all about riding position and I can get low to the front end with a riser bar just by bending my elbows more.

As for sizing a bike with bars and stems and leaving the frame one size, no way man! The size and geometry of the frame is very important in how a bike handles. If you are taller and want more reach, you want a taller and longer frame, not just a longer stem. I think mountain bike companies need to give more frame options like in BMX. They should make a 17" and a 17" XL with the same low top tube, but with a longer front end. BMX bikes are sized by length, not height. The reason is because putting a long stem and layback post (which is how BMX bikes were sized in the 80's) was not the way to go. Now you have tons of frame size options and few stem size options in BMX. That is how it should be. BMX also has a ton of handlebar options too. Short or tall, wide or narrow, more bend or less bend, or whatever.

I know some of you don't think BMX should set an example of how mountain bikes should be designed, but it only makes sense after many years of doing it the other way. In the 80's I raced a Pro sized Robinson (19" top tube) with a layback post and an XXL stem. I thought is was the sh#% until I got an S&M Holmes (which is an XL frame with a 21" top tube) with a straight post and short, pro sized, stem. The bars and seat had the same relationship with eachother, but the bike was quicker, jumped better, turned better, and just had an overall better feel to it.

Everyone seems to be so concerned about how a mountain bike climbs and that is why they want a long stem and low bars. Just lean forward more or get some bar ends if you want to be more forward. Trust me, you will enjoy how your bike handles more if you get riser bars and possibly a shorter stem.

[TrailDale]

Also, I think that the increased riser bar usage represents a change in the way people ride, and what they ride on or over.
Back whan I started mtn biking (1995) the hot setup was a too-damn small frame with a 150mm stem, and a flat bar about 3 inches below the seat. Worked great if all you did was ride up hill or raced NORBA races (which were essentially hard climbs and easy downhills with nothing in the way of technical terrain) which was perfect for the pro-roadies that were infiltrating the sport. That was as technical a course as they could handle (except for the great John Tomac - who could and still can ride like a God).

Anyway, riders today are looking for technical challenges other than just climbing hills, and that mid-1990's style bike just doesn't work that well when things get steep and technical. That setup tends to violently throw you over the bars when the going gets nasty, and has proven to be not so popular. :shocked:

Riser stems look goofy. The solution: riser bars.

Riding the old setup, I broke 6 bones in various over-the-bars crashes. Since changing my setup to XL frames instead of large (longer top tube), short 90 to 100mm stems and riser bars, I've been injury-free and much happier. I've also found that I can now ride technical stuff that killed me before - and that's a lot more fun.

Basically: Riser bars = Fun Flat bars = Death
Just kidding.

Seriously though, you really should constantly experiment with bike setup and not have any preconcieved idea of what is best for you. It took me years of changing things to find real improvements in setup, and except for all the crashing in rocks, it was fun experimenting.

It is interesting though to watch the guys with the low flat bars and HIGH seats on small frames as they ride nose wheelies over the log piles at Lebanon and then curse that the trail sucks and is a worthless pile of crap. Its the wrong bike for the trail. Go climb a long hill somewhere . . .

[noise_is_life]

Just to defend long stems and flat bars a little from my point of view...

For me climbing is all about energy conservation (and misery management), sure I can keep my front wheel under control with body position, but it takes more effort.

[funky-funky-chicken]

Shad makes valid points about the effects of geometry... but my point was not about geometry. I certainly don't think that trying to make a bike fit should be wholly accomplished simply by changing stems and bars.

The same position (geometry if you like) could be accomplished on a bike with a stem that had a slight rise to it and flat bars instead of riser bars and a flat stem. I think that you would be hard pressed to be able to find an available stem with the desired amount of rise to it, so people tend to use a riser bar instead. I guess that I made a poor attempt at trying to explain that.

[Dr. Guitar]

When I noticed rise bars come out, all the guys at the local shop that got them, got them for steering. They said that the bars were wider for more precice control. This is true, if you stop and think in geometric terms. It takes a longer movement of your hands to make the same amount of turn of your front wheel with a straight bar. The more upright position is for comfort as I understand.

My preference is a straight bar. When I started biking, I had bar ends on my bike. I learned to ride my current bike with my hands that far from center. Since I never used the bar ends, I just cut the handlebar where my grips and bar ends met. My bars really aren't much shorter than stock, but they do look it, if you haven't seen my bike before. When ever I get on a bike with rise bars, I feel like I am driving a bus or something.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by TrailDale

Basically: Riser bars = Fun Flat bars = Death

So, as an ammendment to previous statements:

GOOD: riser bars on a hardtail taking the left line through the rock garden.

EVIL: flat bars on an FS taking the right line through the rock garden.

[martini]

ONe thing that seems to be glossed over a bit here is the width factor offered by the risers.

Yes, you get get the same height by using a riser stem and flat bar, but you dont' get the same width. In my opinion, the best benefit of risers is the wider stance offered by the wider hand position. It's not the height. By using the riser stem and flat bar, you also get some wierd handleing charachteristics that are not associated with riser bars. The bike just seems to be more tippy, and this can be associated directly back to the width factor. Like that Pontiac ad said, "Wider is better".

[grizzly adam]

Originally posted by TrailDale
Back whan I started mtn biking (1995) the hot setup was a too-damn small frame with a 150mm stem, and a flat bar about 3 inches below the seat.

What shop did you get your bike at?

I was selling lots of mtn bikes in '95 and we made sure that the bikes fit people - including the frame. My first mtn bike is a Bridgestone MB-1, 1992 or 1993 vintage. I rode that until 2 years ago, when the frame cracked. :cryin: I didn't have to change bikes with the "fad" cuz it fit me from the start - with a medium length stem and flat bars.

I think that the riser bar was designed for width AND comfort in mind.

[manual63]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
So, as an ammendment to previous statements:

GOOD: riser bars on a hardtail taking the left line through the rock garden.

EVIL: flat bars on an FS taking the right line through the rock garden.

Chris is 1/3rd Evil.....he has a flat bar.

[EmL34]

Adam-

I remember the Bridgestones, my first MTB was a MB1 from 1988. I completely taco'd the fork in the first week! I bought it at Wimmer's Cycle. He replaced it of course.

I think I also had the shimano bio pace chain rings.

In any case, great ride last Tuesday. There's yet another jump you should be aware of.

[Kingbozo]

Question for you Bridgestone afficianados-Where did the MB-4 fall into the line of things?

[grizzly adam]

It started with the race frame MB-zip, or zero and then went to the MB-1, MB-2, MB-3 and so on to the MB-6. The 6 was almost as good as some of the "other guys" mid level.

OMG - Biopace!! NoOoOoOoO

Do you remember "Pineapple Bob"?! What was the girl's name?