Marginal Gains and real world riding

blinddrew

Long rambling post in the hope of spurring a bit of friendly discussion:

Quite frequently on here you will find some new technology / innovation being discussed and at some point someone will write something along the lines of "well if you're in the pro peloton it probably saves you a few seconds but it won't make any difference for most of us" and it's very easy to think, 'yep, knocking even a minute of my ride really doesn't mean a thing'.

But, thinking about this from a couple of angles, I've been wondering if we should be a bit more open to these things.

Firstly the pro peloton rider can go and ride 160km at a crazy pace and then, in a tour, go and do it again the next day, and the next, and the next, for a week. If I go and do a 160km ride then, unless I do it stupidly slowly, I am royally shagged at the end of it. Who's going to feel a 2% benefit more? The pro who can get up and do this stuff all day and still have the reserves to attack the final climb / sprint, or me, who has nothing left in the tank and could really do with an extra 2%?

Secondly, the cumulative effect of all these marginal gains on bike design is pretty huge, even in a discipline as conservative as road riding / racing. When I first got into cycling (about 25 years ago) it was on a Reynolds 531 frame, Open 4cds and 105 groupset (and pretty much everyone rode Cinelli bars and stem!). Later on (after some bastard nicked it) I upgraded to a Specialized Allez Epic (carbon tubes bonded to aluminium lugs) with dura-ace / campag which was pretty much the dogs bollox at the time. Coming back to road riding about 3/4 years ago, £1k could get you a full carbon frame and fork, ultegra throughout and a bike that would weigh in at about 8kg. It was far stiffer laterally , far better at soaking up road-buzz, the gears shift gloriously easily and the brakes are superb. I can hold a good couple of mph more now than I could then, despite being considerably less fit.
So even with the UCI waving their ban-hammer around we're still making a lot of progress with these marginal gains.

What might the bikes of 2023 be like do you think? And if you did a back to back swap of a 2013 and a 2023 model would you be able to tell the difference?

Discuss.*


* If you want to, obviously no-one's forcing you...

slowbike

Marginal gains in terms of equipment rather than training ... interesting.

Obviously we have certain constraints atm - so the weight limit imposed by the UCI for a "race legal" bike. I know you can go under that if you want - so long as you're not UCI racing.

So weight will be one area that will improve - and perhaps the weight limit will come down too.

Aerodynamics play a huge part in how much power is turned into speed - so expect more aerodynamic road bikes in future. I wonder if anything as dramatic as the Americas Cup could be incorporated - they have substantially changed the game (developed from ideas from Weymouth speed week) in sailing.

Power transfer - we're using chains and whilst we have various bearings that minimise resistance there is still a bit of loss in the transmission.

Tyres - I think that's a big area for development - I've seen the "solid tyres" around and they're not there yet - but they may be one day...


what have I missed?

hatch87

Its down to the individual though. I don't have time to attempt that sort of distance 2 days in the row, I'm lucky to do it 2 weeks in a row. Saving a minute over 6 hours when you're only competing with yourself doesn't count for much. However if you are regularly competing in races then that minute will mean a hell of a lot more.

It will be interesting to see what 10 years will bring, maybe electronic shifting will become the norm even on budget groupsets and the top end stuff has an auto transmission which always selects the right gear depending on cadence and power. There was an article going around earlier about a bike with an infinite number of gears, so there was no chain. Lots of possibilities, or it could just be exactly as it is now, just more expensive

markhewitt1978

There are still massive advances going on with materials technology, e.g. carbon nano-tubes and the likes. So whereas a frame may weigh 1kg now it's entirely possible in 20 years the same could weigh 100g for the same stiffness.

greasedscotsman

hatch87 wrote:

Saving a minute over 6 hours when you're only competing with yourself doesn't count for much.

A better bike doesn't have to just be about going faster. As the OP says...

blinddrew wrote:

Who's going to feel a 2% benefit more? The pro who can get up and do this stuff all day and still have the reserves to attack the final climb / sprint, or me, who has nothing left in the tank and could really do with an extra 2%?

You could do a ride at more or less the same speed and feel less shattered, isn't that a good thing?

markhewitt1978

Not to mention that a lighter, stiffer, and in other ways 'better' bike is much more fun to ride, and if cycling is fun you're going to do it more.

APIII

Lighter doesn't mean better though. It might get you up hills a bit quicker, but it isn't necessarily going to be nicer to ride. Proabably the opposite. The bikes I ride the most now are my 10 year old Pinarello (alu with carbon stays and forks) and a lugged steel. I don't seem to be any slower than on the modern cf bike.

Barteos

Stiffness and "power transfer" (whatever that means...) are completely overrated.
For the majority of riders putting around 200-300W (and pedalling properly instead of mashing) on an average ride it shouldn't make any difference. Most of bikes are stiff enough.
There is also no evidence that a stiffer bike is necessarily "faster". I honestly don't understand this obsession with stiffness.

Comfort (" vertical compliance") of the (carbon) frame itself again is overrated. It's the pneumatic tyres that are designed to offer suspension and comfort and anyone expecting comfort from the frame while riding 23mm tyres at 100PSI or more is misguided. Wider tyres+ lower pressure - just as fast or faster but more comfortable.

Regarding the aerodynamics and weight, a rider is responsible for 80-90% of it so for regular riding, slightly lighter bike, aero wheels or frames and God knows what else will not make a noticeable difference.

Examples of genuine progress/innovation are: STI shifters, clipless pedals, tubeless tyres (almost there...), disc brakes and... independent research on rolling resistance/advantages of wider tyres e.g. by Bicycle Quarterly (largely ignored by the cycling population:roll:).
Anything else like e.g. tapered head tubes, massively stiffer frames, proprietary low spoke wheels etc. are just loads of marketing BS aimed at weekend warriors who genuinely believe that a new set of lighter wheels or a carbon frame will make them 1-2mph faster People actually believe this!

markhewitt1978

Switching to a carbon frame, lighter wheels & better pedals did make me 1-2mph faster. There's no doubt about it

slowbike

Barteos wrote:

Stiffness and "power transfer" (whatever that means...) are completely overrated.
For the majority of riders putting around 200-300W (and pedalling properly instead of mashing) on an average ride it shouldn't make any difference. Most of bikes are stiff enough.

So there's no point in getting any bike other than a 1898 Yale with shaft drive - that's plenty for the "weekend warrior"

blinddrew

Barteos wrote:

Stiffness and "power transfer" (whatever that means...) are completely overrated.
For the majority of riders putting around 200-300W (and pedalling properly instead of mashing) on an average ride it shouldn't make any difference. Most of bikes are stiff enough.
There is also no evidence that a stiffer bike is necessarily "faster". I honestly don't understand this obsession with stiffness.

Comfort (" vertical compliance") of the (carbon) frame itself again is overrated. It's the pneumatic tyres that are designed to offer suspension and comfort and anyone expecting comfort from the frame while riding 23mm tyres at 100PSI or more is misguided. Wider tyres+ lower pressure - just as fast or faster but more comfortable.

Regarding the aerodynamics and weight, a rider is responsible for 80-90% of it so for regular riding, slightly lighter bike, aero wheels or frames and God knows what else will not make a noticeable difference.

Examples of genuine progress/innovation are: STI shifters, clipless pedals, tubeless tyres (almost there...), disc brakes and... independent research on rolling resistance/advantages of wider tyres e.g. by Bicycle Quarterly (largely ignored by the cycling population:roll:).
Anything else like e.g. tapered head tubes, massively stiffer frames, proprietary low spoke wheels etc. are just loads of marketing BS aimed at weekend warriors who genuinely believe that a new set of lighter wheels or a carbon frame will make them 1-2mph faster People actually believe this!

I'm going to disagree with bits of this.
Even for those of us who don't race, we don't just sit a 80-90rpm in whatever gear is comfortable, we sprint for village signs, we race each other up climbs, sometimes we just stamp on the pedals just for the hell of it.
As Mark mentions above, having a faster bike is more fun.

Is stiffer faster? I remember riding my mate's old Vitus 787, that was so flexy there was a real lag between putting the power down and the bike accelerating - you could see the bottom bracket moving side to side. Modern frames don't do that, you leap to your feet and the bikes leaps forward with you - even on a fairly basic modern frame.

I'm going to disagree on the comfort side as well, I still run my tyres at about 100 PSI* but modern frames are notably more forgiving and, as greasedscotsman says, if that means you get home a bit less mangled then that's got to be a good thing surely?


* Out of curiousity where did the idea of lower pressures means lower rolling resistance come from? I've seen a phd paper about it for mountain bikes but that's specifically dealing with riding on soft and rocky ground. When did accepted wisdom change about high pressures on the road?

diamonddog

I am constantly in a battle with myself to beat times I have set etc and I enjoy doing it so I will accept any gains marginal or otherwise by making the bike as light as I can and by getting fitter.

blinddrew

diamonddog wrote:

I am constantly in a battle with myself to beat times I have set etc and I enjoy doing it so I will accept any gains marginal or otherwise by making the bike as light as I can and by getting fitter.

Speaking of which, time to get off my posterior and go for a spin. :¬)

diamonddog

blinddrew wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

I am constantly in a battle with myself to beat times I have set etc and I enjoy doing it so I will accept any gains marginal or otherwise by making the bike as light as I can and by getting fitter.

Speaking of which, time to get off my posterior and go for a spin. :¬)

Enjoy

markhewitt1978

blinddrew wrote:

* Out of curiousity where did the idea of lower pressures means lower rolling resistance come from? I've seen a phd paper about it for mountain bikes but that's specifically dealing with riding on soft and rocky ground. When did accepted wisdom change about high pressures on the road?

I think it's more that there is a sweet spot where you go higher than the optimum pressure you start to increase rolling resistance due to the tyre bouncing back over road deformities rather than deforming over them. The optimum pressure at any one moment depends on the road surface, which of course is ever changing.

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

blinddrew wrote:

* Out of curiousity where did the idea of lower pressures means lower rolling resistance come from? I've seen a phd paper about it for mountain bikes but that's specifically dealing with riding on soft and rocky ground. When did accepted wisdom change about high pressures on the road?

I think it's more that there is a sweet spot where you go higher than the optimum pressure you start to increase rolling resistance due to the tyre bouncing back over road deformities rather than deforming over them. The optimum pressure at any one moment depends on the road surface, which of course is ever changing.

Perhaps that's an area that will be resolved in the future - a self regulating tyre that provides the optimum contact area for the surface you're on at the time.

ugo.santalucia

coming from a different angle, this is not the future of bicycles. IF the industry wants to grow and not stagnate, innovation has to be centred around involving more people into the activity, which means more safety for instance, which means bikes that can be used even on less than perfect road surface and might even means electrically assisted bicycles. All of this couldn't be further away from the world of top end racing and carbon wings... the way the industry is going has no future. When a bike costs 10 K, it is pretty clear to me that this becomes an elite sport and elite sports are enjoyed by an elite only... it is a small market. If the industry wants to thrive, the future is in safer bikes and electrically assisted bikes... all this marginal improvements industry in bollocx and it is the reason why over the past 30 years virtually any bike sold was a touring or MT Bike and road bikes have become a rarity for the wannabe a yellow jersey wearer, while before they were a significant chunk of the market.
Campagnolo and all the other manufacturers that do road bike components only should get this message on board or resign to become little more than curiosities

Monty Dog

It's 99.9% marketing bull$hit - if I want to go faster and do well in races, it's all about quality miles in the legs, regardless of what you ride. When I had the luxury of more time to train and was getting out mid-week for chain gangs during the winter it didn't matter what kit you had, it simply had to be reliable. The ones who'd turn-out for winter rides with all the chi-chi kit were often the first ones off the back whereas it was the guys riding beaten-up bikes and holey kit were the ones to look out for as they were the ones racking-up the hard miles.

imposter2.0

Monty Dog wrote:

It's 99.9% marketing bull$hit - if I want to go faster and do well in races, it's all about quality miles in the legs, regardless of what you ride. When I had the luxury of more time to train and was getting out mid-week for chain gangs during the winter it didn't matter what kit you had, it simply had to be reliable. The ones who'd turn-out for winter rides with all the chi-chi kit were often the first ones off the back whereas it was the guys riding beaten-up bikes and holey kit were the ones to look out for as they were the ones racking-up the hard miles.

^^ agree with this. There was also a thread somewhere on here a while ago which linked to a study showing that slower riders actually had more to gain from aero kit than faster, fitter riders. Although the gains themselves were actually about three-fifths of not very much. Marginal gains are exactly that - marginal. No point seeking marginal gains when there are most likely major gains still up for grabs for most people.

blinddrew

Ok clearly I haven't explained myself too well at the beginning, marginal gains are just that, but the cumulative effect, over twenty years, are, I think, quite significant. It would be nice to do a back to back ride actually.

Ugo's comments about making bikes more accessible whilst cycle sport disappears up its own backside notwithstanding. ;¬)

blinddrew

diamonddog wrote:

Enjoy

oh yes, and cheers, I did

ugo.santalucia

blinddrew wrote:

Ok clearly I haven't explained myself too well at the beginning, marginal gains are just that, but the cumulative effect, over twenty years, are, I think, quite significant. It would be nice to do a back to back ride actually.

Ugo's comments about making bikes more accessible whilst cycle sport disappears up its own backside notwithstanding. ;¬)

My point is that the bike of 2023 might not be such a sophisticated piece of machinery, as in the meantime chances are the all industry of marginal improvements has gone bust... it is a decadent industry that seeks profit from the desire for an imaginary object that does not exist in real life... it is OK for a while,then people move on

monkimark

if you look at the weight & aero gains then presumably the marginal gains are going to get more marginal.
Even if you can halve the weight of your superlight bike, you're only knocking off 3-4kg, which most of us could probably manage with a week off the beer and a big dump.
Similarly, I can flatten, ovalise and tweak the surface properties of the bike tubes all I want but I'm still going to have my torso sitting on top of it like a big sail.

The technology gains are probably going to be of most benefit to me are probably away from the weight/areo obsessions - disk brakes with consistent power to give confidence to hit corners faster, genuinely puncture proof tyres so I don't spend 10 minutes of a 2 hour ride sat on the side of the road, reliable shifts with no dropped chains etc, gripper tyres, maybe some sort of in built suspension that takes the sting out of the road.

charlie_potatoes

monkimark wrote:

Even if you can halve the weight of your superlight bike, you're only knocking off 3-4kg, which most of us could probably manage with a week off the beer and a big dump.

But you could have the superlight bike, a week off the beer and take a big dump which would knock off 6-8kg

blinddrew

ugo.santalucia wrote:

My point is that the bike of 2023 might not be such a sophisticated piece of machinery, as in the meantime chances are the all industry of marginal improvements has gone bust... it is a decadent industry that seeks profit from the desire for an imaginary object that does not exist in real life... it is OK for a while,then people move on

Yep, I get that, cycle tech needs to shift from the marginal gains at the top of the market (as mentioned above, these are only going to get smaller*) to making stuff cheaper, easier and safer at the bottom. Electric assist, disc brakes, decent built in lights etc etc.

* Unless the UCI has a complete rethink of its approach.

greasedscotsman

Monty Dog wrote:

It's 99.9% marketing bull$hit - if I want to go faster and do well in races...

And if you don't?

greasedscotsman

blinddrew wrote:

Yep, I get that, cycle tech needs to shift from the marginal gains at the top of the market (as mentioned above, these are only going to get smaller*) to making stuff cheaper, easier and safer at the bottom. Electric assist, disc brakes, decent built in lights etc etc.

I don't think it's all about marginal gains and 10 grand superbikes, I think it's all getting better. Check out mid range bikes, the ones that most people buy. Are they better than they used to be, I think so. And also look at the range of bikes you can get now. For example, look at how many cross bikes are avaliable. Even things like lights. When I started, you had things like this...



They were rubbish. Modern lights are so much better, aren't they?

blinddrew

greasedscotsman wrote:

They were rubbish. Modern lights are so much better, aren't they?

Hell yes! I had a set of them :¬) Half the time they bounced out of the mounting because they were too dim for you to be able to see the pothole.

Monty Dog

And to think those Eveready lights were an improvement on the previous ones - to think that we'd ride on the road with those things - eyes straining just to see the kerb. I remember my batteries dying 10 miles from home after a hundred-miler one November

markhewitt1978

I don't know. I think we're seeing material prices come down all the time. So your average crappy hybrid in 2032 will probably be made of carbon and weigh 6kg whereas your Tour de France bikes will be heavier as the UCI is intractable!

Dorset_Boy

Hah! those are new everready lights - remember the ones in a metal case with a black switch on the top that illuminated nothing!

Battery technology has seen a massive advance in the last 10 years - will that continue? If so then can it be coupled with a lightweight motor?

Are there big advances to be made in clothing - as has been said above, it is the rider that creates most of the drag, so if that resistance can be reduced.... Also can ultra breatheable clothing be made that is also wind and waterproof, so that sweat is instantly wicked away?