CARBON-BARS

CENTER OF
CONTROL
You can see the glimmer in many bikers’ eyes at the
sight of carbon-fiber bikes. But with carbon-fiber bars,
some people’s foreheads are drenched in sweat. Our
lab test attempts to uncover whether it is wise to trust
the black luxury material even with the most delicate
parts.
A bar's life in time-lapse: the testing machine
“VR-3” squeezes ten years into nine hours.
 CARBON-BARS

After passing the test many

bars still look great but already
have ten years of hard riding
under their belt.

tace. These two manufacturers cover the

bases from light to strong very well.

worker puts out constant results day after The Test

day? Proof can be found in the weights of
Text Stephan Ottmar Pictures Daniel Simon
the products. A spread of five percent is The testing machine demands eve-
not unusual. rything of the bars. In less than nine
---- And again the cell phone of BIKE tes-
ter Martin Peukert rings. At the other end hours a full life of a handle bar is simula-
the testing machine “VR-3” is beeping
Horror scenario: bar failure ted. For this, a complex of loads is used.
loudly. A tested bar broke – that much is Through real-life riding the loads acting
The big danger for users: slightly dama- on a bar have been measured. The tes-
clear. Now there is no time to waste. The
ged carbon fiber will fail suddenly – similar ting machine transfers those loads from
breakage has to be evaluated, a new bar
to aluminum. A weakened bar can break real-life into the lab. Since simulating a
has to be put onto the machine and the
apart with a sudden crack during a des- test track is not yet possible, the most
machine needs to be started anew. Martin
cent. The results are open for your ima- important loads are being picked. That
starts off running. Time is of the essence
gination. is how the complex of loads has been
since all in all 60 precious handlebars are
Neither a cracked frame nor brake failure created (page 38).
being put through the test cycle on the
is as scary as bar failure. Handlebars are
testing machine. Every single one will be
safety-relevant parts of outmost priority. Six different loads are created. Natu-
bent, compressed and pulled for eight
That is why we leave no stone unturned rally, different events happen with dif-
hours.
during testing. The weakest of the four ferent frequency. What biker rides only
Fifteen models from eleven different ma-
samples is the deciding factor for the test standing or drops every few yards over
nufacturers are being put to the test. We
result. Only if all four samples are yielding high steps? In addition, light crashes are
test four samples of every bar. That's a
good results will the grade be positive. simulated. Everyone falls off of the bike
world premiere. Never before has anyo-
FSA, Easton and Truvative all had one occasionally. After a big crash, though,
ne taken such a comprehensive sample.
weakling on their team. Even big-name there is only one thing to do: replace the
The balance is excellent. Nine models re-
manufacturers, who invest lots of time bar and stem. Neither aluminum nor car-
ceive all points possible. If you compare
and know-how in their development, ap- bon fiber offers enough margin for safe-
this result with past tests, you will see that
parently have problems in manufacturing. ty. Whether a bar has already been da-
carbon fiber is first choice as a material
After less than one-tenth of testing time, a maged is not always evident, so always
for handlebars.
Truvative “Team Carbon” said good-bye. take the safe route and replace it.
One Easton and one FSA followed suit
Normally these kinds of tests are limited to
relatively soon after. This is why buying a Appropriately, all bars are clamped on
a maximum of three samples. With such
bar can be like playing the lottery. the testing machine with a suitable stem.
an important part we wanted to be on the
Much worse are Control Tech and Ritch- For technical reasons we had to use a
safe side. There's a good reason for it:
ey. Of the models “WCS Carbon Riser”, substitute stem because the vibrations of
“WCS Carbon Flat” and “Crossbow”, none the machine loosened bolts. After eight
Carbon-fiber problem: spread of the tested samples reached significant hours of run time the machine stops the
runtime. Just one “WCS Flatbar” finished test. Many bars survived the time wi-
The main problem of composites is cen-
the test. We strongly discourage buying thout damage and withstood 150,000
tered in manufacturing methods. Current-
those products. load changes. About such samples, Jo
ly, there is no cost-effective way to me-
chanize manufacturing of the black fiber. Klieber, Syntace boss and developer of
Significant is the thin midfield. The bars the testing machine “VR-3” says, “Expe-
That‘s why the bars are being laminated
either break early or never. Therefore the rience shows that
by hand. By doing so, small irregularities
list of “Best of Class” is fairly long. Weight-
can lead to capital weaknesses. And what
conscious racers use Race Face and Syn-
Blind trust: At high speed you have to
be able to trust your material.
Carbon fiber material: processing, strengths and risks
Production process
Even today manufacturing of carbon-fiber pro-
ducts requires lots of manual labor. Layers of
material are added by hand. For bars, so-called
prepregs made of unidirectional fibers are used.
The individual fiber mats are already drenched in
resin so the right combination of resin and fibers
is ensured.
A bar consists of a base, middle and top sheet.
Each sheet is made of several layers of pre-
pregs.
Those layers are glued to a flexible rod. For grea-
ter strength, more layers are used. An interesting
note: Only the top sheet is end-to-end for optical
reasons. Below the top layer the sheets are quite
often criss-crossed.
After the last sheet has been glued, the rod is
pulled out and substituted by an inflatable blad-
der. Now the bar will get its final shape: It is
placed in a negative mold. In an oven the bladder
is inflated and pressed to the mold. This autocla-
ve method is very laborious, but its advantage is
the production of highest quality parts. After mol-
ding, the bars are cut to size and lacquered in
several layers.
Material properties
Carbon fiber is anisotropic, which means it can
bear loads only in one direction. Perpendicularly
to the strands it can bear only a fragment of the
load. As a result we have the interwoven structure
with its carbon-fiber typical looks. Fiber strands
are run in all directions and make the material
stronger in all directions.
Comparison of carbon fiber and
aluminum
Everywhere you read how much better the mate-
rial properties of carbon fiber are in comparison
to aluminum. If only tensile strength were of im-
portance, a bar made of carbon fiber would only
weigh one-tenth of an aluminum bar. But tensile
strength is not the only important property. Alu-
minum has advantages in many other areas that
outdo carbon fiber. So in fact, the weights of bars
made of one or the other material barely differ.
As soon as manufacturers get a handle on the
variants that occur in production, they can start
making composite bars lighter. While aluminum
has reached its limits, carbon fiber still has lots
of potential.
 CARBON-BARS

bars reaching this number of load chan- Bike tester Martin Peukert now can sa- action. A few can relax, though.
ges do not break in the real world.” vor his leisure time. The testing machine
won’t be calling him at ten at night any-
Carbon fiber beats aluminum more. Now it is time for manufacturers to
While frames made of the high-tech ma- react to the results of his tests and take
terial are widely accepted, there is still a
lot of skepticism about handlebars, but
without reason. The carbon bars tested
break all the records: 75 percent of all
tested samples pass every hurdle easi- Dipl. Engineer Dirk Zedler, BIKE contributor and bicycle technical expert: www.zedler.de
ly. During the bar test in BIKE 10/02, we
tested almost exclusively aluminum bars Installation influences riding
and the number of bars that passed the
test was below 30 percent.
pleasure and breakage
The analysis of many broken bars yiel- carbon-fiber bars. The torque values
A few rules have to be observed however.
ded a clear picture: the majority of bre- stated for controls are usually too high
Always install the bar exactly as speci-
akages have been caused either by a for carbon. Use carbon-fiber mounting
fied in the manual. Use the stated torque
bad combination of parts or poor instal- paste for controls and bar ends. The
values when installing, not only for clam-
lation. So observe these tips: Always paste increases friction and a lot less
ping the bar to the stem but also for the
use bar and stem from the same ma- torque is needed for the same result.
fastening the controls. Only cut the bars
nufacturer and with the same quality. If you want to cut the bar, contact the
as far as the manufacturer specifies. The
Stay within the recommended torque manufacturer to check on where the re-
manufacturer must also state that moun-
values by using a suitable torque inforcements for the bar ends and con-
ting bar ends is admissible. After small
wrench and check frequently. Contact trols are located. If you install controls
crashes and at the end of the season,
the manufacturer of the stem to check outside the reinforced areas, breakage
you should inspect the bar and replace it
whether the stated values are good for is imminent.
if you see damage. After bigger crashes
replace the bar and stem – safety first.

Testing cycle: completeStem

life & DH
a bar 2002.4
ofHandlebar
in time-lapse
Test Machine VR-3

Test procedure (Load collective)

1000 N
Pull

500 N

0N
1 sequence = 1000Lc = 2:30 Min (24000 Lc/h)

500 N
Push

1000 N

1500 N

1 200 500 load cycles 50 250 1

Repeated until failure of specimen

Load parameters (Effective forces per side)

Offset Impact Climbing Cross Country Hard Climbing Downhill Jump / Impact
Alternate phase Alternate phase Simultaneous phase Alternate phase Simultaneous phase Simultaneous Phase

40mm

Push 1100 N Push 400 N Push 600 N Push 300 N Push 1000 N Push 1600 N
Pull 300 N Pull 250 N Pull 250 N Pull 550 N Pull 450 N Pull 900 N
x Angle 2° x Angle 2° x Angle 2° x Angle 2° x Angle 2° x Angle 2°
y Angle 22° y Angle 22° y Angle 22° y Angle 22° y Angle 22° y Angle 22°
Frequency 3 Hz Frequency 6 Hz Frequency 10 Hz Frequency 2,5 Hz Frequency 7 Hz Frequency 4 Hz
Offset 70 ms Offset 20 ms Offset 0 ms
Each 4000 Lc 4 times Cycles 200 Cycles 500 Cycles 50 Cycles 250 Each 4000 Lc 4 times
17. May 2006
I:\TESTMASCHINE\
A: Loadpoint: 40 mm from bar end. B: Top distance between cylinders = Bar width -100 mm. C: Headtube angle: 72°. D: If no manufacturer restriction, standard test w/ MTB-stem block ID #256#. TESTSTANDARDS DH
+ RC (Artworks &
E: Rod end w/ clamp: 500g +-125 g. F: Grip clamp width: 50mm. G: Temperature: 18°-28°C. H: Random specimen of 3+1 required. I: Tighten all screws w. 150% of recommended max. torque. Texte)\DH Standard\
VR3 DH 2002.4 v01.ai
© Jo Klieber / Germany
Lab test: 480 hours permanent operation
Installation and maintenance: torque values are decisive
Torque wrench
To install an expensive and delicate carbon
fiber bar you need a torque wrench. Normally,
if bolts are tightened by feel only, the disparity
between it and the correct value is too high.
If the stem plate is tightened too much, there
is too much stress in the clamping area. The
fibers don’t have enough room to move and
can break. The same holds true for all controls
like brake levers, shifters, lights and screw-on
grips.
Lab test
Since it does not make any sense to make a
real-life test, we rented space at Syntace in Ta-
cherting, Germany, where the VR-3 is located.
The VR-3 is a bar testing machine developed by
Syntace in conjunction with several testing insti-
tutes and BIKE. The machine is connected to a
huge compressor and is able to apply its force in
well-controlled doses. It can exert either push or
pull forces on both bar ends.
The testing cycle is stored in the machine’s brain
(page 38). Every bar goes through this cycle either
until it breaks or 210,000 changes of loads have
been reached. After that, the machine stops. The
bar has done its due. The run time equals a life
span of about ten years. But be aware: weather
influences are not part of the simulation. This test
focuses on mechanical forces.
The testing cycle
The offset impact at the beginning (0) and the
drop/hit (5) are special events that don’t happen
very often. The events simulate very hard riding
or light drops. Steps 1 and 3 simulate riding while
Mounting paste
Torque values, instructions for installing bar ends
and cutting the bar should be part of a good manu-
al. Please read the manual before installation.
Mounting paste disperses the pressure onto the
material and improves clamping of the bar onto
the stem. The paste is infused with plastic par-
ticles. They roughen the surface of the clamping
areas of bar and stem without damaging them.
The effect: Even at low torque values the bar is
tight and the strain on the material is lower.
standing. In those events the rider pushes down
one side of the bar and pulls up on the other.
Steps 2 and 4 simulate bumps and rough ground
as they occur in real rides under varying condi-
tions. Exact testing forces can be read in these
“load situations.”
All in all, the test runs through 1002 changes of
loads with varying loads and force transmissions.
After one cycle runs its course, the game starts
anew. A good bar runs through the cycle 210 ti-
mes for a period of about 9 hours.
The meaning of it all
Every type of bar is tested four times. This way
we are able to uncover variance in the production
process. If the numbers of successful cycles for
one type and model are close to each other, it is
possible to make a prognosis about life expectan-
cy. If there are mavericks, it is a sign of variances
during the production process. We bolted all bars
with recommended torque values.
Routine checks
After a long period of use, the stem works its
way into the material of the bar. Damage can
also occur at shifters and brake levers. Winter
tune-up is the perfect time to perform a comple-
te check including dismantling the bar. Carefully
inspect the clamping areas. In case of irregula-
rities such as cracks, nicks, or chips, replace
the bar.
 CARBON-BARS

Pictures of breakage

Breakage in the clamping area Forced breakage

This is the classic of carbon fiber materials. Through permanent pressure This form of damage only occurs under extreme forces, like the appea-
on the underside of the bar, the structure becomes waved. If the radius of rance of a bar after a huge drop. The fibers are torn in the direction of
the wave gets too small, the bar breaks. force pull. (This damage did not occur on the testing machine, we created
it on purpose.)

Breakage at a bend Bad design

The bend is a critical area for carbon fiber bars. High pressure on the Abrupt transitions are a bad design for any material, and this holds true
fibers is responsible for failure at this location. Under pressure, fibers rip for carbon fiber as well. The “Crossbow” has many abrupt transitions. A
off. testing sample shows ruptures in five different places.

Overview of all 15 carbon fiber bars

Four of eight bars did a great job and are fully within the green area. Bars A flat bar has two bends fewer than other bars and is easier to manufacture.
that constantly manage to withstand more than 80,000 changes of force are Five models can be recommended without limitation. They are fully race-
suited for mountain biking. ready.

Changes of force Changes of force

 CARBON-BARS

Statement from the Control Tech regar-

ding the test results of the “Crossbow”:
“We inspected the Cross-
bow extensively and tested
it according to the Euro-
norm and DINPlus. It passed
those tests. The Crossbow
is no downhill bar, therefore
we think the requirements
(...in this test...) were too
high.”
Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info
Distribution Distribution Distribution
Statement of Ritchey about the test
results of the “WCS Carbon”: Width Width Width
Within the two years of sel- Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height)
Bend Bend
ling the carbon fiber bars Weight Weight
Bend
Weight
we never had any breakage Price Price Price
in the clamping area. Never-
theless, we will refine our Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage
Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1
internal testing procedure Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2
that is already beyond the Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3
CEN-Norm. Particularly, we Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4
will integrate more abrupt
Conclusion: The Trek brand Bontrager can Conclusion: The distinctive design is the
hits. We owe this to our cus- take quite a bit of abuse. Sure, the “Race X problem of the stem/bar unit. Too many transiti-
Conclusion: Three out of four bars are
great? Smells like variance. The design is OK,
tomers.” Lite” is not especially light but a reliable partner ons make the part susceptible to breakage. The but there is a problem in manufacturing.
for all riding situations. weight is too high for racers.

BIKE says * super BIKE says* has weaknesses BIKE says * acceptable

Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info
Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution
Width Width Width Width
Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height)
Bend Bend Bend Bend
Weight Weight Weight Weight
Price Price Price Price
Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage
Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1
Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2
Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3
Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4
Conclusion: FSA has the same problem as Conclusion: Apparently FSA is better at Conclusion: Race Face shows how it’s
done: light, sturdy and affordable. Three argu- Conclusion: The narrow 25.4 mm diameter
Easton, one maverick on an otherwise great making flat bars. Four bars survived the test
ments for the “Next XC’. The oversize design between bar and stem does its job as well as
team. The weight of the bar is the highest in this without damage. That is a sign of quality.
saves another 10 grams according to BIKE the oversized version. This product has only
test. Too bad. Interesting design.
measurements. strengths. Nice surface.
BIKE says * acceptable BIKE says * super BIKE says * super BIKE says * super
*The BIKE evaluation reflects the subjective impression of the test ride�
**Because of bolts on the sta�
Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info
Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution

Width Width Width Width

Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height)
Bend Bend Bend Bend
Weight Weight Weight Weight
Price Price Price Price

Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage
Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1
Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2
Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3
Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4

Conclusion: The definite loser of this test.
Not a single bar made it through. The “WCS
Carbon Riser” is full of safety risks. Not suited
for a mountain bike.
BIKE says* has weaknesses
Conclusion: The only bar to present four
vastly different values. The first 2 are especially
too low to use this bar on a mountain bike.
BIKE says * has weaknesses
Conclusion:Many racers already swear by
the “Duraflite.” For good reason, it is the lightest
bar in this test. Exemplary: The clearly stated
torque values next to the clamping area.
BIKE says * super
Conclusion: If you shell out 159 Euros for a
bar, you expect quality. It is what you get with
the “Lowrider Carbon.” Light and sturdy are its
attributes. The bar can be shortened as much
as you like.
BIKE says * super

Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info Technical and other info
Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution

Width Width Width Width

Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height) Rise (height)
Bend Bend Bend Bend
Weight Weight Weight Weight
Price Price Price Price

Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage Test result: change of loads until breakage
Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1 Bar 1
Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2 Bar 2
Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3 Bar 3
Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4 Bar 4

Conclusion: All four samples cruise through Conclusion: The new Syncros “Factory Conclusion: After only half an hour one Conclusion: “Atom Flattie” from Use is a
the test and achieve great results. Weakness: Carbon” has a 31.8 mm diameter. It can be re- sample broke. This spread holds an inherent really hot item. The part has been designed with
Because of its high weight it is not suitable for commended without limitations for competition. danger. Could be the bar holds up, could be the help of modern technology and it pays off.
weight weenies. it fails. Recommended without limitation.

BIKE says * super BIKE says * super BIKE says* has weaknesses BIKE says * super

*The BIKE eval�

**Because of bolts on the sta�