Re: Most significant advance in bike technology for speed?

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 14:33:07 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 2/4/2025 2:23 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Fri Jan 24 23:51:10 2025 Roger Merriman  wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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. 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. 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.)
>

On a broader point bit like disks eventually coming to road, MTB had if not
integrated brakes and shift levers that one didn?t need to move one?s hands
or even shift finger positions, with thumb shifters.
>
Ie it was being done on a related design so was inevitable just matter of
when.
>

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.
>

Probably that one actually I believe that Penny farthings could shift,
where raced around Herne Hill which is old ish Velodrome in East London.
And they certainly could shift probably the biggest jump.
>
Don?t get me wrong been lots of improvements, some have been speed by
default even in the 90?s MTB didn?t really last long in races be that
frame/components etc. be that getting a double puncture, loosing the chain
or something bending/snapping!
>
That?s certainly come a long way racers now expect their bikes to last the
race and even over multiple runs!
>

Tubular metal frames and wire tension (spoke) wheels.
>
Large driven wheels, to give a much higher effective ?gear.? (The
Ordinary or Penny Farthing)
>

I believe that bikes went to cranks as they didn?t have anything drive
chain as such yet.
>

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

>
>
>
>
   have been puttoing in big miles for 50 years. While Brifters were certainly and improvement it had absolutely no comparison to 28 mm tires. Many of the early carbon fiber bikes were unrideable with high pressure 23 mm tires.

>
Really? Hadn't noticed.
>
I was out on my 1988 Kestrel fixie with 22mm tubulars this
morning. Aside from the cold, everything else was fine.

 When we first came back to Bangkok I was still running "sew-ups" and I
found them a real advantage when fixing a flat on busy city streets -
just pull the flat and push on the spare and give it a shot with the
CO2 inflator :-)