Disc brakes in the Pro ranks.

ugo.santalucia

OnYourRight wrote:

If pro cycling was popular enough, the bicycle manufacturers wouldn’t be able to compete with the likes of Coca-Cola, AXA, and Volkswagen for sponsoring teams. They’d be priced out. That would be a good thing. (Of course it is also unimaginable at present.)

You'd still need them to be the tech-supporters and provide technology for free or for money. If what the PRO ride don't match their latest innovation, then they'd have no interest to supply it... it would actually be counter productive for them to supply obsolete technology. The world of professional, semi- and amateur racing is not a market big enough for Shimano to bother, it's the sunday warriors, the commuters and the birthday boys of all ages they have to target and many of those want disc brakes and none of them want tubular tyres

Daz555

As said elsewhere, mandating that discs used in bunch road races must be a pure circle and also have rounded edges would surely alleviate almost all concerns.

sherer

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PRO races are there to showcase new equipment, if they don't use what's new and exciting in the shop, what' the point in having sponsors?

Ideally the sponsors would not be bicycle manufacturers. That would remove this conflict of interest and let the racing concentrate on the racing rather than technology churn.

That's unthinkable... the two worlds feed on each other. If Mercedes did not benefit from the work they do in Formula 1, why would they develop new technology at all?

Yeah. Marketing innit.

I can't see the PRO tour being sustainable without sponsors from the bicycle manufacturers, can you?

Depends how you are looking at this. Not sure if the UCI have any sponsors that cover the whole Pro Tour, hence when you watch Pro Tour races it's different sponsors at the side of the road each race.

Bike manufacturers sponsor the teams themselves. The neutral service has Shimano as a UCI sponsor that seems to be about it. See list at bottom of this page http://www.uci.ch/road/about/

markhewitt1978

But it's basically saying that if there are no disc brakes then bike manufacturers and groupset manufacturers will withdraw from the sport. I think that's stretching it a little.

smithy21

Daz555 wrote:

As said elsewhere, mandating that discs used in bunch road races must be a pure circle and also have rounded edges would surely alleviate almost all concerns.

Get Cookson a login. Problem solved

ugo.santalucia

markhewitt1978 wrote:

But it's basically saying that if there are no disc brakes then bike manufacturers and groupset manufacturers will withdraw from the sport. I think that's stretching it a little.

Formula 1 has to constantly revise the rules to please the manufacturers, why not cycling? As I said, other than mister FM and Mr Dugast, who has an interest in still making tubular tyres?

Cable pulled rim calipers have reached their pinnacle, no point coming out every year with a different anodising colour of the same thing

dish_dash

Formula 1 - that amazing success story of a sport :roll:

markhewitt1978

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Formula 1 has to constantly revise the rules to please the manufacturers, why not cycling?

Do they? I was going to cite F1 as an example to where to some extent things have gone the other way and innovation is gradually being taken out of the sport due to banning a lot of things like ABS, active suspension, having standard ECU, heavily restricted engine development, heavily restricted aero development, standardised tyres. F1 these days is pretty much the opposite of what innovative car manufacturers are looking for.

But it's probably also a red herring, as who really associates their Ford Fiesta to a Formula 1 car? Whereas as Scott bike ridden in the Tour de France isn't a million miles away from my Scott CR1 I ride on the road, in fact if you didn't know anything about bikes you'd be hard pushed to tell them apart - apart from the levels of in ground dirt obviously.

ugo.santalucia

dish_dash wrote:

Formula 1 - that amazing success story of a sport :roll:

They have different problems, a few that spring to mind

1) What's the point of a team sport where team tactics are not allowed and each pilot races against his team mate?

2) Budget of the teams should be capped to allow more realistic competition

However, in terms of how technology drives change and how technology then filters to the car market, I think they have done way better than the American Nascar and such nonsense

markhewitt1978

ugo.santalucia wrote:

1) What's the point of a team sport where team tactics are not allowed and each pilot races against his team mate?

Team orders were brought back in a few years ago. But you're right that it isn't really a team sport, and certainly nothing like cycling. The only reason teams have more than one car is more of an economies of scale issue rather than allowing for tactics and the likes.

2) Budget of the teams should be capped to allow more realistic competition

That was seriously tried a few years ago and nearly led to the teams breaking away and forming their own league.

ugo.santalucia

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Do they? I was going to cite F1 as an example to where to some extent things have gone the other way and innovation is gradually being taken out of the sport due to banning a lot of things like ABS, active suspension, having standard ECU, heavily restricted engine development, heavily restricted aero development, standardised tyres. F1 these days is pretty much the opposite of what innovative car manufacturers are looking for.
.

The problem with cars is that technology has gone so far and so fast that you could have a car that drives itself to victory in a GP and the sport is historically about the pilot, not about the car, hence the restrictions.

In cycling there isn't that risk, as innovation is so incremental that it virtually does not affect the result of the races. You have to give Sagan two to three decades of disadvantage to make him lose a race he would otherwise win, while in F1 six months' ago technology is history

markhewitt1978

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem with cars is that technology has gone so far and so fast that you could have a car that drives itself to victory in a GP and the sport is historically about the pilot, not about the car, hence the restrictions.

For one season they had cars which knew exactly where they were on the particular circuit and changed gear for the driver without any input from them - not automatic gears, way more advanced than that, and clearly ridiculous. Same as the likes of traction control, you have one of the most powerful engines in the world but you don't have to modulate the power output, you just mash the throttle and let the computers do the rest.

In cycling there isn't that risk, as innovation is so incremental that it virtually does not affect the result of the races. You have to give Sagan two to three decades of disadvantage to make him lose a race he would otherwise win, while in F1 six months' ago technology is history

Indeed so. Give Sagan my 'ordinary' Scott CR1 - he would still win the race.

ugo.santalucia

... Therefore there is no reason for the UCI to limit the influx of technology, other than for safety reasons. I appreciate rotors are sharp and can cut, make them not sharp and bring them in.

The other arguments of them being hot is much weaker, as crashes in the peloton involving many riders hardly ever happen just before a hairpin

RichN95.

F1 is essentially a competition between engineering companies where the cars are more important than the driver . The manufacturers are the sport. Not so with cycling.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

F1 is essentially a competition between engineering companies where the cars are more important than the driver . The manufacturers are the sport. Not so with cycling.

Exactly, therefore brining in new tech in cycling should be easier, rather than more difficult. UCI should be more open minded, rather than less... up to 2 years ago they wanted folks to ride around the track for an hour with Eddy Merckx's bike, c'mon...

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

F1 is essentially a competition between engineering companies where the cars are more important than the driver . The manufacturers are the sport. Not so with cycling.

Exactly, therefore brining in new tech in cycling should be easier, rather than more difficult. UCI should be more open minded, rather than less... up to 2 years ago they wanted folks to ride around the track for an hour with Eddy Merckx's bike, c'mon...

No, it makes it more justifiable to keep New tech out if it is not in the best interests of the sport.

onyourright

Except it’s in cycling’s interest to retain manufacturers as sponsors. It keeps coming back to this conflict of interest. The manufacturers are interested in technology push. No other stakeholder is.

markhewitt1978

But it's increasingly looking like disc brakes just aren't suitable for pro racing - on safety grounds.

ABS is banned in Formula 1, yet it's in every road car.

ugo.santalucia

markhewitt1978 wrote:

But it's increasingly looking like disc brakes just aren't suitable for pro racing - on safety grounds.

It just happened what everybody expected to happen... someone got cut... round those edges and the problem disappears. As someone said earlier, it looks like they are trying hard to find a good reason to resist change.

Racers are not keen to change, if it was for them, we would still be racing on single speed bicycles (as gears were considered unfair, giving an advantage to the unfit)... you can listen to them, but you don't have to do as they say

RichN95.

OnYourRight wrote:

Except it’s in cycling’s interest to retain manufacturers as sponsors. It keeps coming back to this conflict of interest. The manufacturers are interested in technology push. No other stakeholder is.

Disc brakes weren't invented in response to a competitive need within road racing. It's existing tech being imposed on it.

Now they have a need - making them safer, so time for some innovating.

onyourright

Eddy Merckx on discs:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/04/ ... ing_402468

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Racers are not keen to change, if it was for them, we would still be racing on single speed bicycles (as gears were considered unfair, giving an advantage to the unfit)... you can listen to them, but you don't have to do as they say

Sorry, that's rubbish. Racers in the main welcome and embrace change. This is a safety issue. If large numbers of pro voice concerns about safety, shouldn't we listen?

ugo.santalucia

OnYourRight wrote:

Eddy Merckx on discs:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/04/ ... ing_402468

He's old, isn't he? I don't think he understands what the fuss is all about

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Racers are not keen to change, if it was for them, we would still be racing on single speed bicycles (as gears were considered unfair, giving an advantage to the unfit)... you can listen to them, but you don't have to do as they say

Sorry, that's rubbish. Racers in the main welcome and embrace change. This is a safety issue. If large numbers of pro voice concerns about safety, shouldn't we listen?

Listen, yes... but bearing in mind all they care about is their own safety. There are other priorities to take into account, so the priority is to make disc brakes safe to ride in a peloton, even if they don't belong there.

prawny

I haven't read through the whole thread since the Ventoso incident, but is anyone else a bit confused how he managed to get sliced across the leg, without putting one end of it through the spokes? From his statement I expected a vertical slash which would make sense, but I can't see how that has happened.

My other thought reading his statement was that if he'd have had discs he wouldn't have crashed into him... 8)

onyourright

prawny wrote:

I haven't read through the whole thread since the Ventoso incident, but is anyone else a bit confused how he managed to get sliced across the leg, without putting one end of it through the spokes? From his statement I expected a vertical slash which would make sense, but I can't see how that has happened.

I’ve seen a few people airing such doubts (perhaps suggesting they’ve never had a bike crash. The weirdest things can happen). So are you suggesting he just invented the story and the UCI believed him?

To be honest, I thought the talk about crash risks with discs was pure scaremongering. So I have some respect for Merckx, old as he is, predicting that these things “can slice a tendon”, which they more or less did here.

Alex99

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Racers are not keen to change, if it was for them, we would still be racing on single speed bicycles (as gears were considered unfair, giving an advantage to the unfit)... you can listen to them, but you don't have to do as they say

Sorry, that's rubbish. Racers in the main welcome and embrace change. This is a safety issue. If large numbers of pro voice concerns about safety, shouldn't we listen?

The safety concern over discs seems to be trumped up. What about the bike round thing with sharp teeth on it, or the hard, hard concrete and absence of protective equipment, or moto's that get too close to bring us nice footage? Seems like perspective of the real dangers has been lost. It would be easy to make bike racing safer if a critical mass actually was minded to.

Whether discs are actually addressing a need or not is another question. I'll get them on my next training bike so I don't grind the rims when I ride in the wet Chilterns.

prawny

I'm not saying he's made it up, but he says himself he didn't know it had happened when he crashed into the back of the guy in front, how can he be sure it was a disc that did the damage, and if it did, fair enough, but how. I've just realised it was his left leg too, that's confused me even more.

A disc is no more exposed than cassette teeth, is is possible the cassette did it?

The_Boy

A cassette wouldn't cut clean like that.

edit: imo, natch

ddraver

prawny wrote:

I'm not saying he's made it up, but he says himself he didn't know it had happened when he crashed into the back of the guy in front, how can he be sure it was a disc that did the damage, and if it did, fair enough, but how. I've just realised it was his left leg too, that's confused me even more.

A disc is no more exposed than cassette teeth, is is possible the cassette did it?

It doesnt make a lot of sense to me either...