Hi, when I view George's drawing in the R&O for handlebars, 1928-1930, it shows 4 1/2" off the table from the last bend to the ends where the grips are, a flat profile for that final run of tubing.  I'm replacing the RH bar on mine and when I put it on the table and measure, the LH bar which appears to be unmolested, is about 5" off the table at the last bend and then it rises to 6 1/4" at the end of the bar. 

My inclination is to match the new bar rise to the old bar (of course!) but I'm curious if George's 4 1/2" dimension is critical?  Obviously there are no tank/frame interference issues with a slightly higher bar, and I'm of average height (6') so I don't think that will be an issue, I'm more curious if anyone has run into this before and will it look odd?

Thanks!

Higher bar could be handy too, as the lower ones can be a little close to the knees when turning full lock, depending on your height. Funnily enough, I straightened a pair for a customer yesterday that had approx the same dimensions as yours. 

My old 28 short frame , sold a few years back (sheds tear slightly) had really wide bars on it, that cleared the knees easily. Shame I never took dimensions off it. 

As for matching one bar to the other, yes , thats what I did yesterday too. If both bars are a mess, I go with the dimensions in the R&O, if one side looks pretty good, I just match the bent side to that, less manipulation of old tubing the better, in my humble opinion.

cheers,

Tim

ps hope you are recording all this stuff as you go along, Mike. Maybe as time goes by we can start collating some of this info into one place as an addendum to the R&O. A list of areas where you have run into a shortage of info would be great.

Sorry, Harry, typed Mike thinking it was Mike Byrne. Likewise, keep a record of issues you find, and let me know how you sort them, and what info was useful, and how you found it.

Tim