trailinbobcat

I've always felt that an element of the bar width conversation that is overlooked is how 'optimal' bar width can interact with body shape/size, but also exists as a function of upper body strength and stability. Working in a bike workshop, I often find myself trying to help customers dial in their bar width, and have found quite a few cases of smaller riders preferring a relatively wide bar compared to their size, as compared to larger and stronger riders. Amongst environmental factors (like how tight/fast your trails are), I've often assumed that a stronger and more confident rider will be able to overcome the loss of stability and leverage that comes with a narrower bar, whereas smaller and/or less stable riders can benefit from the benefits of a wider bar. For example, after a lot of testing, my partner has settled on a 760mm bar despite her relatively small frame. I meanwhile, have tested everything from 800mm to 700mm bar width, and find that I can comfortably use a bar from 730-770mm on most bikes, with more apparent drawbacks on either side of this window -- despite the fact that I am significantly larger (taller, broader, heavier, and wider biacromial measurements) than my partner. I put this down to being stronger in my upper body, and more stable as a result. Similarly, I think looking at how narrow a lot of EWS/ESR racers run their bars with seemingly little drawback to dh performance. I think everybody, and every body, is pretty unique and a formula is never really going to result in an optimal solution for most people. As a starting point, however, they are pretty valuable!

With DT aluminium nipples (or any alu nipples), I've generally found you get a lot longer lifespan out of them from using DT's own nipple wrench over a generic wrench (e.g. the black Park Tool classic). The DT one spreads the load much better over the nipple's surface and is a lot easier on them over time.