Those who know me know I'm quite an opinionated person, some of my views or rather the things I say can be controversial (only if you are stupid though, otherwise you know I'm right :) )
Tech: Is it getting ahead of itself?
This is an interesting one for me. Over the past few weeks, Kristoff has been raving about how great Tubless tires are. However in Roubaix he claimed they ruined his race.
The use of new technology forced onto teams and riders has increased over the past few years, and although Kristoff has clearly had more successes than failures on his tubeless tires, it does beg the question: is tech getting ahead of us?
Is it really ready for use?
Is all the new tech that comes out really ready for use, is it even necessary, or is it just a push to market new products as soon as possible before the competition comes out with something that is more new that truly beneficial.
The tech geeks, Sunday riders and wannabe-superheros will often tell you about how great and how much better the new stuff is, but as a general rule, if you charge them more $, and put them on something "different" they will interpret whatever they feel from the bike or equipment as "better". Besides, they wouldn't be cool if they weren't keeping up with Joneses.
Tube-Less
Tubeless technology has come from Mountain Biking where it has enable people to run lower tire pressures without the risk of getting pinch flats and thus increasing grip. You don't run low enough tire pressures on a road bike go get pinch flats anyway, so that advantage is negated. From personal experience the use of a sealant inside a tubeless wheel setup does reduce some flats, and that is a huge advantage, however the sealant only seals once the pressure gets down to about 80psi, but that's fine, you can still ride home no problems on that pressure. However if the hole is even slightly big enough to be visible, the sealant doesn't work and you to install an old-school tube to get yourself home. This is where things start going wrong. For one thing your tire is full of a sticky horrible sealant, which gets all over your hands, clothes and bike as you try to install a tube. The whole process is time consuming and messy. Most places in the world you ride your bike in don't actually give you that many flat tires, and I personally would run tubeless tires without a sealant seeing as they are a ticker sturdier tire already, and just put a tube in when I flat. But I also wouldn't really argue that as being much of an advantage over a classic tire and tube setup. I'm still unconvinced of the advantages of tubeless on the road.
DiToo
People have raved about Di2 for years, although you sometimes have to wonder why. Although once set up it doesn't go out of tune (so that's more of a mechanic's issue that an end user issue) it is slightly heavier, a lot more expensive to purchase and replace parts on and also noticeably slower shifting. It works very well for Sunday riders and World Tour riders who have 2 spare bikes on cars behind them, but it doesn't always hold up quite as reliably for the "workhorse" riders; ie: the smaller team throwing bikes on planes, bouncing over rough roads and relying on rented team cars with no spare bikes and limited spare parts in the depths of some godforsaken country you didn't even know organised a race. In fact a quick look at the harshest of races, Paris -Roubaix often reveals that some of the favorites chose to run mechanical shifting over Di2 for better reliability: see Sagan or Cancellara as examples. Rumor has it other (non-favorites) also would like to switch to mechanical shifting but the teams and sponsors put pressure on them not to.
Slipped Disc (or bent)
Disc breaks offer unarguable improved breaking, but I have personally never heard as much break rub by the end of a mountain stage than on disc breaks. If they were developed with an increased gap between the rotor and calipers, that problem would be resolved. But the industry seems content with pushing the use of discs on the Pros to help increase sales rather than perfect a potentially fantastic technological improvement.
Thru-axles
Disc breaks mean a lot of torsion as the breaking is only on one side of the wheel, but the concept of switching to a slower wheel change, and using tools to remove a wheel is quite simply going backwards to before the invention of the Quick-Release. Once again this is fine for the Sunday rider or the World Tour guy. The Sunday rider isn't in any real rush to change to fix that flat, and the Word Tour Rider, who these days has to change bike rather than wheel because a wheel change is so slow, has those 2 cars behind him with at least 1 spare bike per rider... but it doesn't work for the smaller teams, or the enthusiast amateur racer who generally gets a spare wheel from some random van provided by the local bike shop who supports the local race organiser; his or her race is pretty much over if they get a flat. There is undoubtedly a system of quick-release thru axle that can be developed, but again that would take time, and the industry seems happier to push for rapid sales than it is do develop truly efficient technological improvements.
Aero Gains:
Don't give me the aero advantages of not having a quick-release argument! That advantage is very quickly countered as soon as you get a flat tire and don't have a spare bike and 3 teammates to help you back into the race without wasting your (or their) energy. Let's also not forget that aero stats are generally given based on tests at a speed of 40kph for an individual rider (ie not 40kph in the middle of a bunch of riders already providing huge amounts of aerodynamic benefits and savings), most people buying into the aero-thing are unable to ride at that speed, or spend a very small percentage of their ride time anywhere near that speed.
Aero Psychology:
You may not be aware of this, but oversocks offer the same aerodynamic advantage as an aero road frame. So although adding all the aero gains together can make a difference for a Pro rider earning a living from finishing a split-second faster, or looking to break the hour record, next time someone tells you they can really feel their aero road frame is a lot faster, put them on a non-aero road frame with oversocks and no explanation, then see if they feel the same advantage... from my experience, the answer to that question is a firm no.
Getting ahead of ourselves:
Technology has made a huge difference to performance and enjoyment in the sport of cycling. And new tech is always exciting. It needs to be encouraged and supported. However as consumers we also shouldn't fall into the behavior of not asking questions and blindly accepting what someone tells you. The industry is currently hell bent on increasing sales for the sake of increasing sales. In fact the faster then bring out slowly developing tech, the better. That means ever increasing sales as the tech not only is release but is also developed further year after year. But perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are happy with constantly changing equipment and our own views for the sake of being up to date over simple, unadulterated performance?
Tech: Is it getting ahead of itself?
This is an interesting one for me. Over the past few weeks, Kristoff has been raving about how great Tubless tires are. However in Roubaix he claimed they ruined his race.
The use of new technology forced onto teams and riders has increased over the past few years, and although Kristoff has clearly had more successes than failures on his tubeless tires, it does beg the question: is tech getting ahead of us?
Is it really ready for use?
Is all the new tech that comes out really ready for use, is it even necessary, or is it just a push to market new products as soon as possible before the competition comes out with something that is more new that truly beneficial.
The tech geeks, Sunday riders and wannabe-superheros will often tell you about how great and how much better the new stuff is, but as a general rule, if you charge them more $, and put them on something "different" they will interpret whatever they feel from the bike or equipment as "better". Besides, they wouldn't be cool if they weren't keeping up with Joneses.
Tube-Less
Tubeless technology has come from Mountain Biking where it has enable people to run lower tire pressures without the risk of getting pinch flats and thus increasing grip. You don't run low enough tire pressures on a road bike go get pinch flats anyway, so that advantage is negated. From personal experience the use of a sealant inside a tubeless wheel setup does reduce some flats, and that is a huge advantage, however the sealant only seals once the pressure gets down to about 80psi, but that's fine, you can still ride home no problems on that pressure. However if the hole is even slightly big enough to be visible, the sealant doesn't work and you to install an old-school tube to get yourself home. This is where things start going wrong. For one thing your tire is full of a sticky horrible sealant, which gets all over your hands, clothes and bike as you try to install a tube. The whole process is time consuming and messy. Most places in the world you ride your bike in don't actually give you that many flat tires, and I personally would run tubeless tires without a sealant seeing as they are a ticker sturdier tire already, and just put a tube in when I flat. But I also wouldn't really argue that as being much of an advantage over a classic tire and tube setup. I'm still unconvinced of the advantages of tubeless on the road.
DiToo
People have raved about Di2 for years, although you sometimes have to wonder why. Although once set up it doesn't go out of tune (so that's more of a mechanic's issue that an end user issue) it is slightly heavier, a lot more expensive to purchase and replace parts on and also noticeably slower shifting. It works very well for Sunday riders and World Tour riders who have 2 spare bikes on cars behind them, but it doesn't always hold up quite as reliably for the "workhorse" riders; ie: the smaller team throwing bikes on planes, bouncing over rough roads and relying on rented team cars with no spare bikes and limited spare parts in the depths of some godforsaken country you didn't even know organised a race. In fact a quick look at the harshest of races, Paris -Roubaix often reveals that some of the favorites chose to run mechanical shifting over Di2 for better reliability: see Sagan or Cancellara as examples. Rumor has it other (non-favorites) also would like to switch to mechanical shifting but the teams and sponsors put pressure on them not to.
Slipped Disc (or bent)
Disc breaks offer unarguable improved breaking, but I have personally never heard as much break rub by the end of a mountain stage than on disc breaks. If they were developed with an increased gap between the rotor and calipers, that problem would be resolved. But the industry seems content with pushing the use of discs on the Pros to help increase sales rather than perfect a potentially fantastic technological improvement.
Thru-axles
Disc breaks mean a lot of torsion as the breaking is only on one side of the wheel, but the concept of switching to a slower wheel change, and using tools to remove a wheel is quite simply going backwards to before the invention of the Quick-Release. Once again this is fine for the Sunday rider or the World Tour guy. The Sunday rider isn't in any real rush to change to fix that flat, and the Word Tour Rider, who these days has to change bike rather than wheel because a wheel change is so slow, has those 2 cars behind him with at least 1 spare bike per rider... but it doesn't work for the smaller teams, or the enthusiast amateur racer who generally gets a spare wheel from some random van provided by the local bike shop who supports the local race organiser; his or her race is pretty much over if they get a flat. There is undoubtedly a system of quick-release thru axle that can be developed, but again that would take time, and the industry seems happier to push for rapid sales than it is do develop truly efficient technological improvements.
Aero Gains:
Don't give me the aero advantages of not having a quick-release argument! That advantage is very quickly countered as soon as you get a flat tire and don't have a spare bike and 3 teammates to help you back into the race without wasting your (or their) energy. Let's also not forget that aero stats are generally given based on tests at a speed of 40kph for an individual rider (ie not 40kph in the middle of a bunch of riders already providing huge amounts of aerodynamic benefits and savings), most people buying into the aero-thing are unable to ride at that speed, or spend a very small percentage of their ride time anywhere near that speed.
Aero Psychology:
You may not be aware of this, but oversocks offer the same aerodynamic advantage as an aero road frame. So although adding all the aero gains together can make a difference for a Pro rider earning a living from finishing a split-second faster, or looking to break the hour record, next time someone tells you they can really feel their aero road frame is a lot faster, put them on a non-aero road frame with oversocks and no explanation, then see if they feel the same advantage... from my experience, the answer to that question is a firm no.
Getting ahead of ourselves:
Technology has made a huge difference to performance and enjoyment in the sport of cycling. And new tech is always exciting. It needs to be encouraged and supported. However as consumers we also shouldn't fall into the behavior of not asking questions and blindly accepting what someone tells you. The industry is currently hell bent on increasing sales for the sake of increasing sales. In fact the faster then bring out slowly developing tech, the better. That means ever increasing sales as the tech not only is release but is also developed further year after year. But perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are happy with constantly changing equipment and our own views for the sake of being up to date over simple, unadulterated performance?
Comments
Post a Comment