3alarmer 

...what's circular about saying that riding a bicycle in an endurance event has been going on for a long time ? Other than a faster finishing time, how is the Roubaix "better in every way" ? "Continuously pop up outside C+V" ? PeteHski just told me I'm not one of the regulars he encounters engaging in this exercise. You guys need to coordinate on who the enemy is here.

But even in this thread, you've managed to repeat your argument that all steel frames from the 70's and 80's are the same.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​


I let it slide, because I was anticipating another personal attack instead of any rational discussion from your direction. You are the classic one trick pony. You need to come up with another trick.

3alarmer 

...please don't make this about character. We've been over this before. Once you start down this road, it will not end well. You were not a part of that exchange, and even though I realize personal attack is all you have left when it comes to me, the original quote is there for anyone interested, not that far up thread. "Coming out of the woodwork" is accurate. It is a phrase usually used to describe vermin or other insect infestations.

So don't preach to me about character. That's one.

3alarmer 

.
...I can see that this thread has provided no more opportunity for reasoned discussion, absent the usual informal fallacies presented as a substitute, than previous ones. I should have quit while I was ahead, and even Maelochs was agreeing with me.

PeteHski

If you ride events like I do then a faster finishing time is all part of the challenge. For example I ride events like the L’Etape du Tour, which is plenty hard enough on a modern endurance bike. Could I even complete it today on an 80s bike? Probably not without getting swept by the broom wagon. But even if I could ride it on a unicycle I simply don’t want the extra handicap.

Incidentally I drove the 800 miles down to the start in a comfortable modern car. But that was obviously a waste of money because I could have driven there in an 80s car. I even own an 80’s classic car to make that choice real. But horses for courses….

vespasianus

I have a bio tech company that manufactures kits in China. I would say they are still years behind us. Shockingly so. There are places that are doing great stuff but for most of the day to day stuff and general knowledge, it is nuts. For example, I am working with a billion dollar company and having them complain about their level of protein production and realizing they are making their DNA using a simple lysozyme treatment of transformed cells and DNA precipitation. Just eye opening. Fine method but everyone in the western world knows that such methods will not result in great production in mammalian systems. They have no clue. Tons of examples like that.

Koyote

I pop into this thread every few days to see how far afield it's gotten from the OP. Mostly the usual suspects beating their same old dead horses -- which have nothing to do with the thread's original question. But this post really shines.

In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." It's all that counts. Failing to realize this is astounding, even for someone who is not interested in such events.

(Now I'll sit back and wait for 3A to question whether I am racing at my advanced age, or claim that non-pro riders somehow can't take advantage of those gains, or offer some other non-sequitur response.)

vespasianus

But if "faster" is the definition, how much faster are they really? And I don't consider anything done by places like GCN "science". And lacking anything real, in terms of science, I fall back on something like plain old race times. And in that situation, while new "bikes" are faster, the amount they are faster is not as great as one would think. Again, look at my Ironman Kona post. You can also look at stage races and climbing times in the TDF. Now granted, times up Alpe d'Huez in the TDF are dependent upon lots of things, including EPO, but I am always surprised at how fast those old fat farts with heavy steel bikes and just nutty gearing went up those hills. The hell with aero, get me a safe version of EPO.

Modern bikes are expensive because people will pay for them. The shift did not occur today but in 2010. Lots of bikes in 2010 that cost $15,000. By todays level, that would be over $20K. There is a substantial wealth imbalance in the world and the rich are getting much richer and prices should reflect that.

The "performance" of today's bikes are questionably better. The rest is marketing to sell bikes. Nothing wrong with that at all.

seypat

Looking at it from outside of the thread, there appears to be 2 lines of thought.

1) The equipment(in any sport) is an extension/part of the competitor. So, "Heck I'm a better cyclist/whatever now than I ever was. Still setting PRs in my 70s"

2) The equipment is just a tool/tools but not an actual reflection on the competitor's current ability. "Heck, I'm still setting PR's in my 70s, but it's because of the equipment. I'd suck, maybe even give up the sport if I couldn't use the equipment available now.

It's similar to when I was caddying. If the player was playing well, it was, "We shot a 65 today!" If the player was off his/her game, it was, "He hit 2 OB and could putt his way out of a paper bag."

Which makes me wonder why E-bikes aren't allowed in UCI racing yet. They wouldn't change the outcome/competition at all and make the racing even more exciting. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.

Koyote

Show me these $20,000 bikes.

For that matter, show me the bikes that cost $15,000 in 2010.

You're just making up stuff.

base2 

I don't have a dog in this fight so please excuse if I am speaking out of turn...

To the headset thing. Tapered headsets in all their varieties, including just plain bigger upper/lowers allow for a lot more material and a better stress path for carbon steer tubes. 1&⅛ straight simply doesn't cut it any more from a materials strength requirement. They come in 1&⅜ (Cervelo) 1&¼, & 1&½ varieties and all are available in integrated or Zero-Stack. The reasoning is to match the stresses between the frame and the fork so that neither unfairly gives/takes the load causing failure of the other.

Another benefit behind the larger diameter head tubes that headset is installed into is frame torsional stiffness. No longer are people riding the gas-pipe wet noodles of yesteryear. The head tube resisting twisting forces just in general by nature of it's diameter, but also immunity from self-reinforcing oscillations by nature of it's shape means that higher speed can be achieved in a much more stable, safer, reassuring manner. Speed Wobble just doesn't happen on modern bikes unless there is something egregiously wrong with rider fit or weight distribution. (usually both)

A 3rd "benefit" (in quotes) to modern headset design is the large upper bearing allows a path for integrated cable systems to hide the cables from aerodynamic forces. This saves precious watts on paper when every nth of efficiency and performance (on paper) is the goal.

To the seatpost thing: A longer seatpost has a higher lever moment. The effect is the seatpost is "softer" over rougher terrain. Whereas short seatposts transfer external forces to the rider much more effectively.

Modern seatpost design actually starts with the bike frame lowering the top tube/seat stay/seat tube cluster down some distance to allow for more available exposed post to flex. Then post length and diameter, &/or shape can be optimized. Giant really likes the "D-fuse" "D" shape to intentionally remove the back half of the post to purposefully allow more rearward flex. There are other solutions. The THM Mandibulaonly flexes horizontally allowing the bike to thrust upward under the rider. I think Roval copied the basic design but made their own innovation enough to escape patent concerns with consequently, a bunch of extra weight.

Nobody in modern engineering uses Post Modern spring loaded seatposts any more. Too many moving parts. Too heavy. Too complicated. ThudBuster, etc...Just are not good solutions for the high performance or enthusiast market.

Then there is RedShift that has come up with a two-position seatpost. It allows for comfortable reach to Aerobars without closing up the riders hip angle. This means that a given road bike can be switched to 95% the benefit of a dedicated TT bike on the fly while riding and back again as the riding situation changes. It really does work & it works well.

vespasianus

Well, the 20K is my point.





I have bike magazines from the 80's to the 2020's. Mountain and road. Not sure why but I am a bike of a bike mag holder. History to me. These are from 2011 Bicycling bike buyers guide.

Again, these are not the norms - just like a 15K bike today is not the norm. But they represent what people are willing to pay. The Felt from 2011 for $12.5K would be ~$16,500 today. A Felt.

Koyote

Yep, you were just making stuff up.

PeteHski

Nice post. I was going to make a similar comment about headsets, but you saved me the effort. My 6” travel 2004 mountain bike still had a standard 11/8” straight headset and I used to go through bearings in no time and the flex was obvious. Creaking headsets became a feature of longer travel full suspension bikes of that era. Thank goodness they abandoned that standard and moved on to larger bearings. I haven’t had a creaky headset since.

3alarmer 

...thank you. Is there some reason they need to be proprietary, that I am also missing ?

3alarmer 

...not me. I'm still astonished to realize that all the guys pushing modern technological improvements, driven by the desire for increased speed and performance, are actually riding stuff that has been intentionally detuned, for comfort. And using those "improvements", and the research costs behind them, as a rationale for expensive top end toys. I'm here to learn.

I'm happy you're "faster" thanks to disposable income, if "In many cycling "events," faster is by definition "better." All of us want to be our best version of self.

Koyote

I've noticed that you often do this -- you make an argument personal, usually without any merit. (I stated nothing about my own bikes, nor about my riding -- whether I race or do other events. The discussion is not about me, nor about you.) I don't think it's exactly an Ad Hominem fallacy, but similar. Either way, it's off-topic and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Like any fallacious argument, it's a 'go-to' when you've got nothing else.

And by the way: I don't know what you mean by "detuned," but bear in mind that a more comfortable bike is often faster, other things equal -- especially for long endurance events. (It's okay to not realize that, but then perhaps you shouldn't have strong opinions if you're ignorant of the requirements of such events.)

Fredo76

I recall back in the day we had a saying: "It's not the bike; it's the rider", and most cyclists knew what it meant, and believed the truth of it.

Colnago, Shmolnago

genejockey 

It's because they're so expensive....

"intentionally detuned"? The difference between the Endurace I own and the Ultimate of the same level is the stack and reach, and wider tires, which aren't even slower.

PeteHski

There are some e-bike racing classes.

Trakhak

Same wheelbase? After stack and reach, that's the number I look at next. Actually, come to think of it, that's the first number I look at after the nominal size designation. If it's not within a few mm of my preferred wheelbase measurement (for the intended use), I'll skip the other numbers.

It's fair, I think, to refer to an endurance/gravel geometry (formerly known as sport touring geometry) as (intentionally) detuned compared to a road racing geometry.

Probably fairer than calling them "detuned" would be to say that bikes that are ridden under conditions where the average speed is likely to be lower (than that seen with a racing geometry on good pavement) should have a slightly longer wheelbase. Horses for courses.

3alarmer 

...this was your grand entry into the discussion:

So for a guy whose signature line still reads as the record of his temporary banishment: "Koyote - insults, harassment, personal attacks - 3 weeks", I'm gratified that you are now conscious of the idea behind refraining from personal attacks. Even if you're still having a little trouble with the execution.

georges1

Yes, it is just another industrial mass produced carbon frame with dura ace or campy record but nothing fancy or artisanal. But hey whatever people are happy to pay and spend their money for. Would it be a high end steel custom made frame columbus like columbus XCR or Life HSS or Reynolds 921 or 931 or Dedacciai Dr Zero with a carbon fork, carbon wheels, carbon stem and bar priced at 15k$ , I wonder what would people reaction's here. Blame the marketing and sales departements for price gouging.

tomato coupe

Please don't fabricate quotes that you attribute to others.

3alarmer 

..thank you. This is also the reason that the "all steel frames are about the same frame" argument, that gets repeated every so often by my good friend and fellow BF poster Atlas Shrugged , was so entertaining the first five or six times I read it. That, and the knowledge that he really and truly believes it. I hope that's not too personal.

3alarmer 

...ok