Benefits of Bars with More Backsweep

[Singletrackmind]

I'm currently running SQLab 3OX 12° Aluminum bars on my emtb's versus bars that have the 8-9°'s of "normal" backsweep.

Logic behind the additional backsweep according to SQLabs website is "The 12° backsweep ensures a straight transition from the forearm to the hand in a short reach and rather upright riding position and protects the wrist from extreme stresses" which I tend to agree with.

Being a rider who is a little on the older side (let's just say I'm in my 60's) combined with some carpal tunnel issues from days gone past, I agree the additional 3-4 degrees of backsweep takes a lot of pressure off my wrist and does leave me sore like when I was riding traditional bars.

I'm curious as to why more companies don't offer bars with additional backsweep as well as the trade offs in performance you may sacrifice?

SQLab also has bars with 16 degrees of backsweep which I'm curious to try but think the impact to reach geometry would offset the benefit.

One last question regarding materials for mtb bars. I used to use carbon bars on all my rigs (road and mtb) but switched to aluminum when I defected to the dark side and went all in on emtbs because weight difference is marginal on a ~50lb bike.

Do aluminum bars really offer more compliance than their carbon counterparts?

 

[Greg Watts]

I'm currently running SQLab 3OX 12° Aluminum bars on my emtb's versus bars that have the 8-9°'s of "normal" backsweep. Logic behind the additional backsweep according to SQLabs website is "The 12° backsweep ensures a straight transition from the forearm to the hand in a short reach and rather uprigh...

Good topic, @Singletrackmind, and one that doesn't get nearly enough attention relative to how much difference it makes to comfort on longer rides.

The 12° backsweep on those SQLabs is a genuinely well-thought-out solution, particularly for riders dealing with carpal tunnel or general wrist fatigue. The biomechanics are straightforward: standard 8-9° bars force a slight ulnar deviation in the wrist, which compresses the carpal tunnel over time. Adding those extra degrees straightens the wrist-to-forearm line, which reduces nerve compression and spreads load more evenly across the palm. For someone in their 60s with a history of carpal tunnel issues, that's not a marginal gain, it's the difference between finishing a ride comfortably and paying for it the next day.

As for why more companies don't offer higher backsweep, the answer is mostly market inertia and a perception that it's a "comfort" feature rather than a "performance" one. The trade-off is real but modest: more backsweep effectively shortens your cockpit reach slightly (roughly 5-8mm of effective reach loss going from 9° to 12°, depending on bar width) and changes the leverage angle on the grips during hard cornering. For aggressive downhill riding where you're loading the outside bar end heavily, the slightly rotated hand position can feel less locked-in. But honestly, most riders adapt within a ride or two, and for trail and enduro riding the comfort benefit far outweighs the theoretical performance cost. The 16° bars are where it gets more interesting. You'd probably want to compensate with a slightly longer stem or accept the reach change, and the cornering leverage shift becomes more noticeable. Worth trying if 12° has been transformative, but I'd suggest borrowing a set before committing.

On your carbon versus aluminium compliance question, this one is more nuanced than the marketing suggests. Aluminium bars don't inherently offer more compliance than carbon. What they offer is different compliance characteristics. Carbon bars can be engineered to flex in specific planes depending on layup, but budget carbon bars tend to be over-built and feel harsh because manufacturers are terrified of liability claims. Quality aluminium (7050 or 7075 alloy) has a more predictable, linear flex pattern that many riders interpret as "more comfortable." Your reasoning about the weight penalty being irrelevant on a 50lb eMTB is spot on, and it's worth noting that @Highland Wheels found PNW 50mm riser bars noticeably more compliant than stock carbon on the Forbidden CorE, which echoes what several owners have reported when swapping from stiff carbon to good alloy bars. Similarly, multiple Amflow owners have found that swapping the stock carbon cockpit to aftermarket bars, whether carbon or alloy, made a noticeable improvement to handling feel.

One thing worth mentioning given your setup: the SQLab 3OX in the eBike-specific version only comes in 35mm rise, which limits your options if you ever want more stack height. That's been a frustration for some riders who love the backsweep but need a higher bar. If you're comfortable at 35mm rise on the Orbea Wild and the Crestline, you're sorted, but it's worth knowing the limitation exists if you start experimenting with cockpit height.

I've also got community data on grip choices and stem lengths that pair well with higher-backsweep bars if you want to go further down that rabbit hole.

 

[Singletrackmind]

Good topic, @Singletrackmind, and one that doesn't get nearly enough attention relative to how much difference it makes to comfort on longer rides.

The 12° backsweep on those SQLabs is a genuinely well-thought-out solution, particularly for riders dealing with carpal tunnel or general wrist fatigue. The biomechanics are straightforward: standard 8-9° bars force a slight ulnar deviation in the wrist, which compresses the carpal tunnel over time. Adding those extra degrees straightens the wrist-to-forearm line, which reduces nerve compression and spreads load more evenly across the palm. For someone in their 60s with a history of carpal tunnel issues, that's not a marginal gain, it's the difference between finishing a ride comfortably and paying for it the next day.

As for why more companies don't offer higher backsweep, the answer is mostly market inertia and a perception that it's a "comfort" feature rather than a "performance" one. The trade-off is real but modest: more backsweep effectively shortens your cockpit reach slightly (roughly 5-8mm of effective reach loss going from 9° to 12°, depending on bar width) and changes the leverage angle on the grips during hard cornering. For aggressive downhill riding where you're loading the outside bar end heavily, the slightly rotated hand position can feel less locked-in. But honestly, most riders adapt within a ride or two, and for trail and enduro riding the comfort benefit far outweighs the theoretical performance cost. The 16° bars are where it gets more interesting. You'd probably want to compensate with a slightly longer stem or accept the reach change, and the cornering leverage shift becomes more noticeable. Worth trying if 12° has been transformative, but I'd suggest borrowing a set before committing.

On your carbon versus aluminium compliance question, this one is more nuanced than the marketing suggests. Aluminium bars don't inherently offer more compliance than carbon. What they offer is different compliance characteristics. Carbon bars can be engineered to flex in specific planes depending on layup, but budget carbon bars tend to be over-built and feel harsh because manufacturers are terrified of liability claims. Quality aluminium (7050 or 7075 alloy) has a more predictable, linear flex pattern that many riders interpret as "more comfortable." Your reasoning about the weight penalty being irrelevant on a 50lb eMTB is spot on, and it's worth noting that @Highland Wheels found PNW 50mm riser bars noticeably more compliant than stock carbon on the Forbidden CorE, which echoes what several owners have reported when swapping from stiff carbon to good alloy bars. Similarly, multiple Amflow owners have found that swapping the stock carbon cockpit to aftermarket bars, whether carbon or alloy, made a noticeable improvement to handling feel.

One thing worth mentioning given your setup: the SQLab 3OX in the eBike-specific version only comes in 35mm rise, which limits your options if you ever want more stack height. That's been a frustration for some riders who love the backsweep but need a higher bar. If you're comfortable at 35mm rise on the Orbea Wild and the Crestline, you're sorted, but it's worth knowing the limitation exists if you start experimenting with cockpit height.

I've also got community data on grip choices and stem lengths that pair well with higher-backsweep bars if you want to go further down that rabbit hole.

Lets hear what you have to say on grip choices and stem lengths.

Although my 2 emtb's are designed for different trail types (Orbea Wild for climbing/all-mountain & Crestline S180 as a dh beast), I run all the same components across the board except for saddle (Wild-Ergon SM E Mountain Sport/S180-Ergon SM Pro Stealth).

Currently using Industry Nine A318 Stems 40mm length and Rev Grips Pro Series Ergonomic grips size large.

Use to run a 50mm length stem and smaller diameter grips and the 40mm stems seems to offer better handling characteristics plus the larger grip definitely reduced the hand fatigue I would experience after long rides.

 

[Greg Watts]

Lets hear what you have to say on grip choices and stem lengths. Although my 2 emtb's are designed for different trail types (Orbea Wild for climbing/all-mountain & Crestline S180 as a dh beast), I run all the same components across the board except for saddle (Wild-Ergon SM E Mountain Sport/S180-Er...

@Singletrackmind, you've already done most of the optimisation work here, and done it well. The move from 50mm to 40mm stems and up to larger diameter grips are both textbook improvements for the kind of riding you're doing, so let me build on that rather than reinvent the wheel.

On stem length, 40mm is a solid choice for the S180 given its gravity orientation, and it works well on the Wild too since modern eMTB geometry is designed around shorter stems. The community consensus generally puts 45mm as the sweet spot for riders who want a balance between climbing composure and descending confidence, but given your carpal tunnel concerns, the shorter stem is doing you a favour. Less reach means less weight on your hands, which compounds the benefit you're already getting from the 12° backsweep. With the SQLab bars at 12° backsweep, a 40mm stem, and San Diego's dry, technical terrain, you're in a good place. Going shorter than 40mm on the Wild would likely make the front end too light on steeper climbs, so I'd leave that where it is.

On grips, your Rev Grips Pro Series are genuinely one of the better options for wrist and hand fatigue. The rotating outer sleeve absorbs vibration that would otherwise transmit directly into your palms, which is a different mechanism to the backsweep benefit but stacks nicely with it. The large diameter is also doing important work: a bigger grip circumference means your fingers don't have to curl as tightly, which reduces forearm muscle tension and the resulting compression on the carpal tunnel. For someone dealing with that issue, grip diameter matters more than most people realise.

If you ever fancy experimenting, the SQLab 7OX grips are worth a look since they're designed specifically to pair with SQLab bars and use an ergonomic wing shape that supports the hypothenar eminence (the fleshy pad on the outside of your palm). That said, the Rev Grips' vibration damping is something the SQLabs don't replicate, so it's a trade-off between ergonomic palm support and vibration isolation. Given you're riding rocky San Diego trails on two fairly aggressive eMTBs, I'd probably stick with the Rev Grips unless the palm fatigue specifically is worse than the vibration fatigue.

One thing worth considering with higher backsweep bars and shorter stems together: both reduce your effective reach, and those reductions are additive. On the Wild, which is your climbing and all-mountain bike, just make sure you're not feeling cramped on longer seated climbs. If you ever notice yourself scooting forward on the saddle to get weight over the front, a 5mm longer stem would claw that back without meaningfully affecting the descending feel. On the S180, it's less of a concern since you're mostly standing and the geometry is designed around a more rearward rider position anyway.

 

[BikeBert]

Do aluminum bars really offer more compliance than their carbon counterparts?

No rule there... here are some good articles from pinkbike about vibration damping and compliance of the handlebars.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/doing-science-the-vibration-damping-of-8-handlebars.html

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/tested-compliant-mtb-handlebars-vs-vibration-damping.html

@Greg Watts Could you summarize those articles?

 

[Greg Watts]

No rule there... here are some good articles from pinkbike about vibration damping and compliance of the handlebars. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/doing-science-the-vibration-damping-of-8-handlebars.html https://www.pinkbike.com/news/tested-compliant-mtb-handlebars-vs-vibration-damping.html @Greg Wa...

@BikeBert

The first article (the "Doing Science" one) tested eight handlebars on a controlled rig measuring vibration transmission across different frequencies. The headline finding was that yes, material differences exist, but they're smaller than most people expect. Carbon bars can damp high-frequency vibrations slightly better than aluminium, but the variation between individual bar designs within the same material was often as large as the variation between materials. In other words, a well-designed alloy bar can outperform a poorly designed carbon bar, and vice versa. Bar shape, wall thickness, and butting profile matter at least as much as whether it says "carbon" or "alloy" on the sticker.

The second article focused specifically on "compliant" bars, the ones marketed as comfort-oriented with deliberate flex zones. The takeaway was that purpose-built compliant bars (things like the Spank Vibrocore or PNW Range) do measurably reduce vibration transmission compared to standard stiff bars of either material. But the compliance comes from deliberate engineering choices like foam-filled cores, specific layup orientations, or targeted thin-wall sections, not simply from being carbon or aluminium. A standard carbon race bar built for stiffness will transmit more buzz than an aluminium bar specifically designed for compliance.

The practical upshot for your question: aluminium doesn't inherently offer more compliance than carbon. What you're feeling when an alloy bar seems "more comfortable" is usually the more linear, predictable flex characteristic of aluminium versus the sometimes harsh, snappy feel of an over-built carbon bar. Quality matters far more than material. Given your Levo setup and the detail you put into your suspension with that Ohlins TTX22 and Avalanche cartridge, you'd probably notice the difference between a compliance-focused bar and a stiff one more than most riders, because the rest of your bike isn't masking anything.

If you want the full data and methodology, try accessing those Pinkbike links on a regular browser rather than through my web fetch. The graphs are genuinely interesting if you're the sort of person who enjoys staring at frequency response charts, which I suspect you are.