's Forum Archives - Components

Archive Home >> Components(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )

TTT Prima 220 vs. 199(11 posts)

TTT Prima 220 vs. 199DrD
Mar 14, 2002 6:08 PM
Ok - so anyone have any experience comparing the two of these? Other than the claimed weight (220 vs 199g), what are the differences? Geometry looks the same, material is the same ("alutan" - some proprietary 7xxx series alloy they use) - the 199 is supposed to be triple butted (which, if the 220 were not, could explain where they lost the 21g).

How flexy are the two bars? I would think the 199 would be a little more flexible than the 220, due to thinner tube walls - anyone have any idea?

(I am going to be putting one of the two on my bike (like the feel of the ttt anatomic bars over the Deda I have on there now) - I got a set of new 220's cheap, just curious what the difference is, other than the matte finish and the more industrial looking logo on the 199...)
re: TTT Prima 220 vs. 199B2
Mar 14, 2002 9:50 PM
I have no experience with the 220's but do have the 199's in the 42cm width. Cannot notice any undue flex. They seem to work quite well, but I don't really have much else to compare with. No noticeable difference between the 199's and the Forma SL's for me.

re: TTT Prima 220 vs. 199pmf1
Mar 15, 2002 5:23 AM
I've used both and can tell no real difference. Neither bar seemed flexy to me.

Next set of bars I get are going to be either Kestrel or Easton carbon though. Been wanting to try them out.

If you got a good deal on a 220, put it on and use it. Aluminium bars aren't forever. And its not like 21 grams will make a hill of beans difference (fart before you get on the bike if you have the 220 and you'll be equivalent to the 199).
I don't know what the first two guys are talking about...sprockets2
Mar 15, 2002 2:36 PM
Until the 199, I had never used a bar that had flex unless I really pushed on it. The 199 is much more flexy than any bar I have ever used. If you really work your bars, you might want to go for the 220 or a carbon. I am a bit spooked by the 199, but as I don't work my bars hard I will hang on to them. I am doubly spooked as I saw a guy walk into a bike shop the other day with a failed 3T bar that had made him go endo at 20 mph. Ouch!
I don't know what the first two guys are talking about...DrD
Mar 15, 2002 3:58 PM
I wouldn't worry about the failed bar too much - one datapoint doesn't make a trend (curious though - where did it fail - at the drops or at the stem clamp?) - also, for the flex, was that with the same stem as you used with previous bars? (I ask because I recently switched stems from one which was really flexy (Deda Murex) to one which is really stiff (Syncros Hinged) - big difference in feel while climbing (I could watch the stem twist as I climbed... new one doesn't do that)

I do wrench on the bars pretty hard when climbing out of the saddle - I was thinking the 199 might be a bit more flexy, as they thinned the bar down a bit in the drops (doing a back of the envelope calculation, you get about 10-12g savings per side due to the butting, or 20-24g for the bar over the 220 if the 220 is unbutted and 1.2mm thick (which is what I measure for a thickness, anyway)
much ado about little...koala
Mar 16, 2002 5:53 PM
Per Damon Rinard a 44cm sample(one) prima bar weighed as much as 219 grams or as little as 202. Note this is for outside to outside. The 220 bar is also over its ad weight. I bought a forgie bar and it came in at its ad weight of 235 for a 44. A local bike shop employee has a 44 prima on the same stem I have and I see more flex on his off the bike but do not perceieve a difference while riding. Under normal riding conditions I doubt it makes a difference.
much ado about little...CT1
Mar 16, 2002 7:47 PM
Only one I measured but a 199 44cm bar weighed exactly 198gms.

I don't notice any flex in it. I'm 150# and wrench on the bars as hard as I can at times.

which only goes to show...koala
Mar 17, 2002 5:28 AM
that from bar to bar of the same size ther is a lot of variance.
would be expected.DrD
Mar 17, 2002 7:09 AM
Bars will vary in the same manner, and for the same reason as rims do - as the dies used to draw the bar wear, the dimensions of the final product will change (i.e., the bar walls will get thicker as the dies wear out) - for a typical bar, if you estimate the length at 90cm or so, an increase of only 0.02mm (0.001 inches) in diameter will give you a 7g or so increase in weight - similar variations can occur with surface finishing, etc.

In any event - I wasn't concerned about the weight difference between the 220 and the 199, I was curious how the two bars felt relative to one another.
my 130 murex doesn't flex...colker
Mar 17, 2002 8:03 AM
i've ridden on lots of stems and this one doesn't flex. are you clamping the bars correctly on the murex?
that's odd... flex is a common observation with this stem...DrD
Mar 17, 2002 8:58 AM
You must have a "special" murex, then - I have a 110 and a 120, both are flexy torsionally - when I climb, you can watch the stem twist - didn't really bug me too much while riding (you don't notice how different it feels until you try something stiffer - going back, it makes the front end feel "soft" when you work the bars) - note, if you don't really work the bars while powering up a climb out of the saddle, or sprinting, you won't see it. It's not the clamp - for it to be the clamp, it would have to be really loose (which it isn't, otherwise the bars slip on me), plus, when you watch the top of the stem (the line) you can really notice the twisting. This is with a 46cm Deda 285 bar. (I am also a larger rider at 6'3", 210lbs)