taras0000

I'm with carleton on this one. Bicycles are fascinating in that they are extremely simple (at least track bikes are), yet people will try to come up with a "better solution" to what has already evolved over 200 years of trial and error, engineering, and wacky stabs in the dark.

I'm not saying we have to stop improving. If one wants to improve the hardware we use, then one has to take a look at what each piece is meant to do (it's primary function), what attributes of it's design contribute to it's execution, and how those attributes interact to arrive at some sort of ideal mix.

Cake is meant to be a dessert. Certain ingredients and actions serve to make it a cake. Altering the ingredients, the actions, or the amounts of either will have an effect on how your cake turns out. It's fine to play with these. The problem is when we look to make our cake better because we also feel like eating a burger. That's what happened with your take on the Ergostem and your version of a better one.

The ergostem serves one primary purpose, and one secondary purpose, both of which are complimentary. The first is as a fitting tool, the second is as a piece of everyday equipment. As a fitting tool, it is perfect. It allows for an extremely large number of angles, reach, and combinations of both to be used in a real world setting. It is robust enough that it allows a cyclist to race as they normally would, with no detriment to their performance arising from its design. This is the reason it also performs its secondary purpose quite well. It can be used, without harming performance, by someone who cannot attain their best position through stock stems. It also happens to perform these two functions in a relatively light, simple, stable package.

So look at it like this: Can you make a stem that is more adjustable (does this item improve fit)? Will it be as stable/more stable (will it perform as well or better)? Will it be as simple/simpler (is it as user friendly or better)? Will it improve performance in any measurable way by using it versus an ergostem (simply put, will it improve performance over a standard version)? If you can't answer yes to all of those questions, then you are setting up for a very expensive failure.

The reason the Ergostem is what it is arises from the fact that it was such a radical departure from everything else. Just like those BT dropouts. Everyone else has been tweaking the same design in miniscule ways. Most were different just for the sake of being different. Historically the dropout was integral to the stays/frame. Steel frames had steel track ends, and they lasted forever and no one had problems with them. The we started to make frames from other materials and we realized that the frame material wasn't so great for track ends, so designers looked for ways to integrate steel into their dropout. The best ones had improvements that were small in some cases, but most were worse than the original steel track end. They were complicated, increased costs, and still performed poorly. It was when someone decided to separate the track end from the frame that we got the benefits of exotic frame materials, while allowing them to be merged with the best dropout material. It was the yes answer to all of the above mentioned questions, and that is why they are the best.

Maybe instead of a track adapter (been done numerous times, most are the same, all have compromises because they don't stray from the current design trend), focus on a no compromise approach. Permanent solutions to everyday pieces of equipment. Those British strap adapters were the track pedal equivalent of the BT dropout. Someone figured out a simple, stable set up that put the strap(s) in the right place on the foot. It lessened foot movement in the shoe, attached the shoe to the pedal in two ways, while also boosting the clipless mechanism's function (of you look at the design, it actually closes the pedal clasp to keep it from opening). The only downside, as carleton mentioned, was that the user had to modify the pedal, which isn't in everyone's best interest/ability. For the Brits it was perfect as they had people for that, so it was an "all yes" solution for them.

Also think outside of the product box. Remember how I said not everyone is capable of doing certain modifications to their equipment? Do the modifications for them, or offer modified versions of popular stock equipment. I still use SPD-R pedals with straps because I feel that there isn't a pedal available that offers that same level of retention. The only "track" pedals out there that integrate straps puts the straps in the wrong spot on the shoe, and does nothing for the clasp mechanism. It's no better than what's out there, and is different for the sake of being exclusive. If I could buy an modern Shimano pedal with the Brit adapter already attached...SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now go bake a cake.