2017 Gear
Comments
-
Pinno wrote:Surely, like cars, they'll all reach the same aerodynamic and structural conclusions.
I think that's broadly true: if you optimise something to the nth degree, the solutions will be very similar. You only need to look at F1 cars to realise that.
But that same conclusion only gives the lie to the argument that bikes like gravel and adventure bikes are marketing nonsense. They are, in fact, what happens when you refine a bike to different requirements. Now, you can argue whether we "need" that refinement but that's a purchasing choice: I, for one, appreciate the choice. If you go towards a one-size-fits-all design brief, you end up with (to stretch the car analogy) the cross-over soft roader: good at nothing and instantly forgettable.
What I also think is interesting (in a section of cycling that is ultra-conservative) is the comparison of the classic Colnago with the new one. There are a lot of elements that today we'd consider sub-optimal: the saddle, the tyre width and wheel depth, the downtube shifters, cassette sizing, handlebar set up and so on. Yet, with so much of the innovation that comes through today, there's deep resistance: whether that's braking, gear changing, or even tyre size. It wasn't that long ago that 25c tyres were branded as "for fatties" on here. If those same people had been in control, we'd still all be riding that classic Colnago...ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:
I...some stuff he said...Colnago...Pinno wrote:Surely...some stuff I said...conclusions.
What have seen since the C40 in '91(?) bar some previous carbon constructions which didn't manage to cross the divide I would suggest in the way the C40 did (Vitus Carbon 9 etc.), is the proliferation of material technology use: Alu, titanium, carbon in components, etcetera.
I think that peak has gone except for the odd tweak like Graphene in tyres. It's a similar trend to the internal combustion engine which fundamentally is no different in mechanical principle today than it was in 1888. The difference is the materials used, the efficiency, the reliability, the longevity and the peripheries to the principle of: suck, squeeze, bang, blow and: chain and two cogs.
Until the UCI lift the weight limitations, then the current technology is going to be focused on aerodynamics and mechanical efficiency - there's little other scope for mechanical/physical performance gains
My two principle bikes: A C40 ('97) and a Wilier ('09). One 'classic' geometry and one compact. If you take the C40 as unchanged from 91 to 97, there is an 18 year 'evolutionary' difference but is there?. (The fact that I can compare the two: an as then top of the range to one 3rd or 4th from top with the benefit of that evolution, is testament to the Colnago's simplicity and excellence).
Performance wise; one is subtly more comfortable and the other subtly more 'direct'. I mash out PB's on either.
My prophesy: 1x drivetrains with an ultra narrow drive system that doesn't use a chain. Perhaps 14 gears at the rear but it isn't a significant diversion from the current principle.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:meanredspider wrote:
I...some stuff he said...Colnago...Pinno wrote:Surely...some stuff I said...conclusions.
What have seen since the C40 in '91(?) bar some previous carbon constructions which didn't manage to cross the divide I would suggest in the way the C40 did (Vitus Carbon 9 etc.), is the proliferation of material technology use: Alu, titanium, carbon in components, etcetera.
I think that peak has gone except for the odd tweak like Graphene in tyres. It's a similar trend to the internal combustion engine which fundamentally is no different in mechanical principle today than it was in 1888. The difference is the materials used, the efficiency, the reliability, the longevity and the peripheries to the principle of: suck, squeeze, bang, blow and: chain and two cogs.
Until the UCI lift the weight limitations, then the current technology is going to be focused on aerodynamics and mechanical efficiency - there's little other scope for mechanical/physical performance gains
My two principle bikes: A C40 ('97) and a Wilier ('09). One 'classic' geometry and one compact. If you take the C40 as unchanged from 91 to 97, there is an 18 year 'evolutionary' difference but is there?. (The fact that I can compare the two: an as then top of the range to one 3rd or 4th from top with the benefit of that evolution, is testament to the Colnago's simplicity and excellence).
Performance wise; one is subtly more comfortable and the other subtly more 'direct'. I mash out PB's on either.
My prophesy: 1x drivetrains with an ultra narrow drive system that doesn't use a chain. Perhaps 14 gears at the rear but it isn't a significant diversion from the current principle.
A fascinating discussion on Cyclngtips gives an idea that bikes are still far from optimised, probably mainly due to a general conservatism on the part of the consumers and industry. In brief they suggest that massively wider tyres (up to 40mm or more) running at super low pressures (down to 50psi) could give performance benefits. Road bikes just aren't designed for these tyres and they are contrary to roadies long held believes. Suspension on road bikes is another area that hasn't really been explored.0 -
I can see short travel suspension being a "thing" in the future. You are right though, roadies are the least accepting of new technology, especially compared to Triathletes and MTB riders. If MTB riders had the same attitude they would still be on single speed clunkers with drum brakes.
Look at the silliness which has ensued with the introduction of disc brakes. You would think they were the devil incarnate reading the comments on Cycling Weekly's Facebook (Never read the comments)0 -
inseine wrote:Pinno wrote:meanredspider wrote:
I...some stuff he said...Colnago...Pinno wrote:Surely...some stuff I said...conclusions.
What...principle.
A Suspension on road bikes is another area that hasn't really been explored.
It has in bits; peculiar to the cobbles using elastomers in seat stays for example and Rock Shox but piecemeal.
...and dodgy frame geometry. Don't adjust your screen:
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Steve Bauer. Doesn't get any better looking at the years go by.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
-
-
Or the new Roubaix.....Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I just hope that the onus will be back on light & stiff bikes again soon.
You mean like the Specialissima... http://www.bianchi.com/global/focuson/s ... ima-246661
0 -
I think it will get more refined and the manufacturers will concentrate on it from a performance, not just comfort point of view. Bikes got really light, then all efforts went on aerodynamics, at the moment it's about the braking. Next step must be in making the bike go quicker through suspension, not rock shox but a more evolved version of what you've posted above.
Canyon did a concept bike a while back with suspension didn't they?0 -
"DSM claims to be working with "several brands" on development projects with its new Dyneema Carbon, which incorporates Dyneema into sheets of carbon. DSM declined to name any specific brands.
DSM claims Dyneema Carbon will make carbon bikes better at absorbing both road vibrations and outright impacts to the frame tubing. Regular carbon is "strong, stiff, lightweight and easy to mould. But it’s not so good at handling impact,” said DSM Dyneema scientist and part-time professor at Delft University of Technology Roel Marissen. "
"unlike other minimalist shoes, the hold stays consistent from the time to you saddle up to when you get off – something that Specialized credits to the non-stretch ‘Dyneema’ panels strategically applied to the midsection of the shoe."
http://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/info ... mance.html
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... 018-48447/0 -
inseine wrote:Pinno wrote:meanredspider wrote:
I...some stuff he said...Colnago...Pinno wrote:Surely...some stuff I said...conclusions.
What have seen since the C40 in '91(?) bar some previous carbon constructions which didn't manage to cross the divide I would suggest in the way the C40 did (Vitus Carbon 9 etc.), is the proliferation of material technology use: Alu, titanium, carbon in components, etcetera.
I think that peak has gone except for the odd tweak like Graphene in tyres. It's a similar trend to the internal combustion engine which fundamentally is no different in mechanical principle today than it was in 1888. The difference is the materials used, the efficiency, the reliability, the longevity and the peripheries to the principle of: suck, squeeze, bang, blow and: chain and two cogs.
Until the UCI lift the weight limitations, then the current technology is going to be focused on aerodynamics and mechanical efficiency - there's little other scope for mechanical/physical performance gains
My two principle bikes: A C40 ('97) and a Wilier ('09). One 'classic' geometry and one compact. If you take the C40 as unchanged from 91 to 97, there is an 18 year 'evolutionary' difference but is there?. (The fact that I can compare the two: an as then top of the range to one 3rd or 4th from top with the benefit of that evolution, is testament to the Colnago's simplicity and excellence).
Performance wise; one is subtly more comfortable and the other subtly more 'direct'. I mash out PB's on either.
My prophesy: 1x drivetrains with an ultra narrow drive system that doesn't use a chain. Perhaps 14 gears at the rear but it isn't a significant diversion from the current principle.
A fascinating discussion on Cyclngtips gives an idea that bikes are still far from optimised, probably mainly due to a general conservatism on the part of the consumers and industry. In brief they suggest that massively wider tyres (up to 40mm or more) running at super low pressures (down to 50psi) could give performance benefits. Road bikes just aren't designed for these tyres and they are contrary to roadies long held believes. Suspension on road bikes is another area that hasn't really been explored.
I think the UCI's double diamond rule and other geo rules probably has some impact - tri bikes do seem to be more innovative (and disgusting) without the rule. Roadies like buying bikes that look like what the pros ride, if the pros were all on the Lotus Boardman bike then I bet there would be a fair few on the Sunday club run...
Since that's apparently why they want discs on pro bikes - to flog to punters.0 -
Nibs' ride for next year...
0 -
not much of a showing for 'Bahrain' there. Merida sometimes look a bit 'cheap'0
-
Just doesn't do it for me.
the DA C35s with white spokes are new though.
Dyneema has been used in windsurf boards for a while now. I doubt anyone will change their stances on using carbon after being in a crash because of Dyneema. Maybe for forks on the commuter?
Will be interesting to see when Graphene makes its way into biking.0 -
coriordan wrote:Just doesn't do it for me.
the DA C35s with white spokes are new though.
Dyneema has been used in windsurf boards for a while now. I doubt anyone will change their stances on using carbon after being in a crash because of Dyneema. Maybe for forks on the commuter?
Will be interesting to see when Graphene makes its way into biking.
Not sure graphene has any properties that make it suited to structural building as in bike frames. It's properties make it useful on much smaller scale.0 -
Fair enough. I think someone mentioned thinner walls, lighter etc.0
-
used on Tyres by Vittoria, but I'm guessing you mean use in a frameset? limited scope I'd say.0
-
The graphene tyres are supposed to be quite flimsy aren't they? Mind you that's vittoria as a whole. Lovely tyres, get shot to bits after about a week....philbar72 wrote:used on Tyres by Vittoria, but I'm guessing you mean use in a frameset? limited scope I'd say.0 -
Graphene is the Pro V product of the moment . Manufacturers adding it just because name sounds current and techy. Graphene in tyres is complete cobblers, as if anything graphene is used as a solid lubricant.0
-
Looking at that monstrosity of a Merida:
WTF is going on at the stem/headtube junction. Looks like a bit of an afterthought.
Chainstay junctions not aero looking.
Front brake in front of forks, yet rear brake under BB.
Seattube and post also looking quite boxy.
Even the front QR skewer looks quite meaty.
I wonder how much Bahrain are coughing up for that squiggle on the seattube as well.0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
The graphene tyres are supposed to be quite flimsy aren't they? Mind you that's vittoria as a whole. Lovely tyres, get shot to bits after about a week....philbar72 wrote:used on Tyres by Vittoria, but I'm guessing you mean use in a frameset? limited scope I'd say.
Can't see the Nibs ride pic for some unknown cyber reason.
I love my Vittoria Pave's BTW. Can't fault them.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
We all know graphene is a marketing con.
BUT, the tanned sidewalls make my bike look sexy.Follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/scalesjason - All posts are strictly my personal view.0 -
Not tried the Pavés, I might have to give them a go if they're less flimsy. I do like the tyres it's just they die so quickly!Pinno wrote:Paul 8v wrote:
The graphene tyres are supposed to be quite flimsy aren't they? Mind you that's vittoria as a whole. Lovely tyres, get shot to bits after about a week....philbar72 wrote:used on Tyres by Vittoria, but I'm guessing you mean use in a frameset? limited scope I'd say.
Can't see the Nibs ride pic for some unknown cyber reason.
I love my Vittoria Pave's BTW. Can't fault them.0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
Warning: Off Topic.
There was a thread about certain Vittoria's but I can't find it. I have the CX's and they are good too. I have been riding the Pave's since Mid April - not a single puncture and they are fine. 90 psi max with latex inner tubes.
I don't ride in any urban areas so very little chance of going over glass.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pro race relevant
New Trek
0
