How Much New is Too Much for You?
 

Deleted

This newfangled "index shifting" is something I can certainly live without.

I draw the line at e-bikes. YMMV

Pre-1985 tech: down tube friction shifters, 126mm rear spacing, non-aero levers, clips/straps, 700c 32h road clinchers, 7-speed freewheels, steel frames, sidepulls.

- I dont think I will have carbon rims anytime soon. Its lmnot like I am against them, I just don't feel the need as my 1 disc brake bike is my gravel bike so the quality aluminum rims on that will be fine for years.

- I don't see electronic shifting hitting my bikes soon. Only 1 can support it my gravel bike, and the 2x11 wide range drivetrain works perfectly as is. Again, no motivation.


I do wonder what I will do in a handful of years because I love my steel frames, but I also love my Ultegra level shifting. Once what I have is nearing the end of life...do I go to Microshift or some hack Amazon ltwoo style brand that is still making 11sp mechanical for rim brakes?

I love the new stuff, gears, bars, seats, wheels, tires, pedals, materials, helmets, clothing, suspension, eletronic shifting,, all the gadgets. Most gains today are minuscule but still positive and healthy for our sport. Think how boring our sport would be if we all bought Black Trek Cruzers, . Like they say, Old enough to know better but too young to resist that new stuff.

A fully enclosed/sealed drivetrain would be nice but the tech doesn't exist yet. I don't mean just IGH but also fully enclosed power transmissions. No more exposed chain / drive shaft, perhaps, not even a chain.

The mainstream drivetrain tech that is fully exposed to the elements is just ridiculous in the 21st century. It discourages all-weather riding and a major inconvenience to daily commuters.

I think the weight weenies are to blame in this messed up priorities when they only make up a tiny minority of the riding populace. Don't mind a bit heavier bike as long as I can ride it in any weather without having to fiddle with it every time I get caught in few hours of heavy rain. And to be honest, I like actually like riding in the rain, any weather, even windy.

Just man-up, get faster, beat your buddies with training instead of counting on reducing your bike's weight.

As soon as somebody starts talking about watts, I'm out

Because the important thing is to place blame and judge others' priorities. Good grief.

I still haven't had threadless, clip anything, tubeless, carbon frame or any other carbon part I haven't made myself.

New tech is great; Racing Improves the Breed, as it were.
However, BF acts like the top-flite bikes are the only ones that exist, and the mfgrs are going to force us all to buy $10,000 super bikes.

Right now, you can get almost any combination of drivetrain, tire size, bar shape, frame style, and price point you can think of. Heck, even BikesDirect has, like 100 different models, and they’re not exactly an industry innovator.

Not everyone has the same cycling needs, wants or preferences; except at BikeForums, where “If I don’t need it, it’s Stupid!”:50:

GTFO with that noise.

Because all people don’t subscribe to your point of view they are automatically wrong and gives you the right to name call? You must be busy full time judging others - what a waste of time. To help you free up some energy, how about a “live and let live” philosophy? Besides, despising others only poisons you since they can’t feel it and could care less.

Only my opinion, I could be wrong. Have a good life.

I'm neither an early adopter nor a Luddite. When things become affordable and are proven by time, I'll jump on.

If I could never have anything but indexed 8 speed steel bike, I'd be perfectly happy - I am with the one I own. 6 0r 7 speed friction? Maybe, but I haven't ridden it in several decades so can't really tell if it would suit my needs and fancy.

BUT. I also love my titanium and CF 10 speeds, and now am really enjoying my big lifetime splurge - a titanium, AXS / Etap gravel bike with hydro discs (which replaced an old 9-speed bar-end shifter aluminum cross bike that I was also very happy with).

I don't enjoy any of these bikes - or the technology that they have - any more than any other. They're all great.

I enjoy the hell out of both old and new technology. I kind of pity people who are stuck, whether it be with old stuff, or the latest.

the newest that I will never get used to is the modern price.

"A fully enclosed/sealed drivetrain would be nice but the tech doesn't exist yet. I don't mean just IGH but also fully enclosed power transmissions. No more exposed chain / drive shaft, perhaps, not even a chain."

Had one on a Honda 300 Dream. So difficult to adjust.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a15a2d0780.png

I'm all for new tech that makes a positive difference to my cycling.

Carbon frames/forks = major positive difference to me for racing.
Electronic Groupset = mostly minor but on occasion significant positive difference. (In general riding, no difference really albeit nice, but in sprints, especially when racing, it has helped me change more smoothly and faster).
Disc brakes = positive difference. They absolutely stop better but the downside is maintenance; they need more attention. I have 2 road bikes, one disc and one calliper SRAM Red with very good pads. very good stopping power, still no match for disc if really honest. I like both but for fast descents, wet weather etc, disc all the time now. On my MTB, an absolute must.
Carbon wheels = major positive. I used to break my rims back in the old days eventually. I haven't broken a carbon rim and I have thrashed my wheels on cobbles and gravel.
Tubeless = positive difference to my MTB, saved many punctures, but on my road bikes no. Not a convert for road.
Power meters = positive difference; I am a convert to how they help achieve training goals vs how it used to be back in the 80's/90's when I last raced.
Strava = positive difference. I only discovered it two and a half years ago! In conjunction with Training Peaks for logging my rides and data, I like the training motivation it can offer; I do chase those KOM's, especially those with Pro's leading them - they mean diddly squat but help in the moment to push that bit harder.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...27ec97ea70.png

So do you favor foot-pounds per minute, or are you strong enough that it's most convenient to quantify your pedaling in horsepower?

I love new tech, anything that makes things easier, more reliable or more fun is a good thing!

Where I draw the line is cost or reliability/practicality. I'm not going to pay twice as much for something new as something that's fine unless there's a compelling reason. I'm also wary about things that need better maintenance like carbon frames (aluminum does me fine) or electronic shifting (because I've seen a few of my cycling friends getting stuck on a long ride where the shifting just fails and they need to ride home in whatever gear they are in. I get that a mechanical one could fail too but that's often easier to bodge back together at the roadside).

We have one on our cars and no one's adjusting theirs. On bicycles will just need different frame construction. The enclosed drivetrain unit would probably need to have the BB, chainstay, dropouts, and the sealed drivetrain itself as single piece unit. The frame simply bolts on to the drive train via BB and and the seat stay to the rear drop out and held together by the rear wheel's retaining bolt. It can still use chain but the gearbox would still be IGH style.

There's no question the fully enclosed system is going to be heavier than fully exposed derailleur systems. But it's going to be extremely beneficial to commuters and E-bikes. Like I've said, the vast majority of riders around the world would appreciate more having a bike that only required very light maintenance in one year of all weather riding than being faster than the rest.

Riders who can choose to avoid riding in the rain and have plenty of time to fiddling with their bikes is actually the minority in the global cycling populace. The needs of the few is apparently more important than actually making the right product for the majority. It's just messed up. Way more messed up than the automobile industry.

You can pry my Friction Thumb Shifters from my cold dead hands

Shimano M700 (black)

OK, blaming the weight weenies is probably too much. Then it's certainly the cycling industry's fault.

Manufacturers have tried making fully enclosed drivetrains. But they always give it up. My guess is the tech has exceeded the "tolerable weights" acceptable to weight weenies.

But why not develop the product further to sell to the non-weight weenie market, particularly commuters, and to the rest of the riders who doesn't care about speed and just want a bike that is easy to maintain? One might argue traditional open-drive bikes are easy to maintain. But unless you work part time only, is retired with lots of disposable income and free time on your hand, then it's actually bothersome enough.

It's like the majority group of riders don't exist to the manufacturers so what they do is just make junk-quality version of their weight-weenie open derailleur drives.

Yea , I’m stuck in the seventies. Last time I visited my favorite bike shop to get a chain replaced on my Medici , the guy asked if I wanted to try some new tangled modern bike they just got in. I politely said “no thanks”. To be honest I’m afraid I would never get back on my steel bikes, and I’m happy where I am. Happiness is bliss!

My reluctance is more based on having to learn new maintenance tasks than any distaste for new tech per se. I don't get much practice on bike maintenance because I only work on my own bikes, so learning to deal with new tech takes a while and sometimes makes it necessary to buy new tools.

I must say, though, that working on disk brakes (mechanical), even given the learning curve, was a cr*p-ton easier than dealing with canti brakes, even though I've worked on them for decades. For my location and riding style disks aren't needed on a road bike, but if tire clearance (or fenders) is a concern, for heavier bikes (tandem, loaded touring) and MTB, I think disks definitely are better for those applications.

I do like bikes that look like bikes, and not something out of Buck Rogers, but that's more esthetics than tech, though the esthetics are (sometimes) driven by tech.

The premise of Grant Petersen's book Just Ride is that the influence of racing (and marketing) has actually ruined cycling for the masses. He advocates for becoming an "unracer". I tend to agree.