Re: Most significant advance in bike technology for speed?

Am Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:33:53 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:

In another forum, someone postulated that integrated brake & shift
levers (like STI) were the most significant bit of racing technology
ever designed for increasing speed.

Nowadays, interesting observations are usually published in an
exaggerated form and packaged in such a way that they can hardly be
distinguished from bullshit, as is the case here. I regret that.

But that claim met with little
respect. One skeptic noted that there was no great increase in average
race speeds in Paris-Roubaix, Milan-San Remo, Tour of Flanders,
Leige-Bastogne-Leige or Giro de Lobardia since about 1960, including
during the era of STI adoption.

To be honest, I'm not interested in races and their average speeds.  But
like others, I have found that many techniques originally developed for
racing also useful for everyday use. This definitively includes combined
brake/shift levers on drop bars.  The difficulty lies in distinguishing
such innovations from those that are useless beyond racing. One should
also not forget that different people have different situations and
different needs.

By contrast, in the  years 1930 - 1960
average speeds increased around 30%. (Note: That does not mean that STI
is not tactically beneficial. That's a separate issue.)

Reducing STI et al to "tactically beneficial" is misleading. I don't do
competitive cycling, never did. But I very much noticed the benefit of
being able to change gears with both hands on or near the brakes.

>
But if not STI, what were the most significant tech developments
regarding bicycle race speeds?
>
Here’s my list:
>
Pedals & cranks, as opposed to scooting a “hobby horse” via feet on the
ground.

What about inventing the wheel? Ernstly, this is ridiculoous.  The
bicycle was already essentially developed when I was born. However, over
time and to this day, there have been many useful incremental
innovations and also many less useful ones. Many of of the former don't
have well known names. Sometimes it is just the adaptation of results
from research and development outside of cycling, for example from
materials science, tribology and such.

The following eight features of your list essentially describe the
bicycle created by Paul de Vivie in 1906, 119 years ago.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie>
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/V%C3%A9locio.jpg>
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:V%C3%A9locio?uselang=de#/media/File:V%C3%A9locio.jpg>

>
Tubular metal frames and wire tension (spoke) wheels.
>
Large driven wheels, to give a much higher effective “gear.” (The
Ordinary or Penny Farthing)
>
The “Safety Bicycle” with a diamond frame and chain drive, getting the
rider down lower, to greatly reduce aero drag as well as pitchover on
braking.
>
Pneumatic tires. Hard tired “safeties” had terrible rolling resistance.
>
The handlebar stem, invented by the heroic Major Taylor, to allow a much
more aero riding position.
>
Rim brakes, by whatever mechanism, as opposed to spoon brakes acting on
a tire.
>
Multiple gears, by whatever mechanism.
>
The derailleur, making multiple gears easy to shift, customizable and
light weight.

Yep, Paul de Vivie inventet the derailleur, in 1906.

The following developments differ from the previous ones in that they
are different designs that have not been adopted except in niches.

>
Recumbent geometry in some situations. Recumbents seem to be slower
uphill, but tend to be faster on level or downhills
>
Fully enclosed streamlined aero shells tremendously increased speed, but
at a great reduction in versatility and practicality.

IMHO, comparing vehicle designs to component designs and material
innovations is somewhat futile.

>
Beyond those, ISTM that most developments have been chasing ever
diminishing returns.

Of course. But that's just like it is, in top-class professional sport
with standardized gear, they are chasing ever diminishing returns - and
most of these returns seem likely to bee more the result of a kind of
natural selection than of technological advances.  In short, you're
barking under the wrong tree.


But give two replicas of Paul de Vivies bicycle to both my wife and me
and ask us to redo a tour like the one shown in the following article.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pluspora/plainpostings/20230619t2154-2023_06_19_effelsberg_again.html>

2023-06-19: 02:48:02   39.6 km  648 m up,  663 m down, 14.1 km/h

Downloadeable track:
<https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=12/50.5460/6.8848/OpenTopoMap,route-quality&lonlats=6.965904,50.563042;6.916018,50.580373;6.814784,50.549436;6.880894,50.523209;6.874346,50.513102;6.91441,50.509225;6.930136,50.526308;6.948736,50.556247;6.966036,50.562965&profile=fastbike>

I doubt that I would have been able to finish that on the de Vivies bike
and I'm sure that my wife wouldn't even try, and rightly so. So much for
diminishing returns.


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions