Feels weird to say "in the biz," since it feels more like dipping a toe in the water as this is a side gig. That said, the barrier here is that to make integrated bars that are narrow but still fit people using bike frames currently on the market. We are looking at a +30mm to +40mm shift in stem length due to reach and the change in arm position. If you had a range of narrow bars with stem lengths going from 120mm to 180mm, I wonder how many people would buy them or how to forecast demand. However, this same issue is why I don't own the rights to this design, so if I do another design, I need to either roll the dice or find a way to get comfortable with it.
Bike fitting is also such a tradition-driven pseudo-science that it will take a while for people to realize what works and doesn't. I think there is also a question of whether some riders should be going back to their "designed" frame size vs. sizing down or even sizing up in some cases. In addition, bars this narrow turn design on their head a little bit. These bars are narrow enough that most people can either touch or almost touch their thumbs from the aero hood's position, so the rider's position limits the impact of integration and aero design. You also have a bike computer up front in most cases, and these bars are wider at the hoods than the TooT or Worx designs. I would be shocked if there is much to gain from integration, which is probably why integrated designs aren't emerging faster.
With all that said, I am slowly sketching options for a v2 version of this bar that I want to own the molds. I am still deciding if it should stop at doing the routing like Cervelo / the new Zipp bar or if it makes sense to design a stem system / integrated one-piece solution. Protecting the design long enough for me not to lose money is another problem, but I will cross that bridge when I get there.
Is this the same as the bikerdoc bars?
https://a.aliexpress.com/_oEDJScpI like the bikerdoc bar but I feel its a bit too expernsive for a unbranded carbon bars.