threeteas

I was watching the 1994 Tour of Flanders on youtube last night and was struck by the preponderance (and domination, still, in the final finish) of steel bikes. Some were probably ti and painted to look like steel but nonetheless all the top pros seemed to be racing on them. Frames had traditional builds without the sloping top tubes and it didn't look like threadless headsets were even in existence yet.

Interestingly, stateside in 1994 I remember that there were a lot more people riding aluminum and carbon in Cat. 3 and 4 races, including myself.

When did this all change? Although I realize especially the Italians were doped to the gills that Spring, average speeds were much the same as they are now. In fact, it seems arguable that steel bikes really aren't that much slower and a lot of it has to do with the U.S. marketing of these new materials vs. their actual efficacy vs. very light and well made steel.

Hmmm . . . .

Lazyass

Aluminum really started taking over in '96 or so. The speeds aren't that much faster today, especially considering stage races like the TDF are a lot shorter than they used to be.

Tour de France Statistics

alcjphil

1994? Aluminum, much less carbon was exotic. At the top tier level of racing steel bikes were the state of the art, especially for the cobbled classics. There was so much at stake for winning these hardest of hard road races that nobody was willing to experiment with any tech that didn't have many, many years of proof that it could stand up

threeteas

I know! Speeds aren't much faster at all.

And as opposed to this year's Ronde, there seemed to be very few crashes in 1994. I read somewhere that crashes are partially due to the more skittish handling of today's bikes; not sure if that is true or not.

threeteas

And carbon kind of sucked back then too, as was proven by two of my Trek 2300s separating at the glued bonding, one in a race!

Lazyass

What's impressive is the 1911 TDF. 5344 kilometers in only 15 stages (vs 3540 in 21 stages last year), unpaved roads on a single speed averaging over 16mph.

HTupolev

The frameset typically accounts for a fairly low fraction of either the weight or the aerodynamic drag of a bike+rider system, even when it's made out of cylindrical steel tubes. And the "bottom bracket stiffness" stuff has always been highly misunderstood, and the direct energy loss astronomically exaggerated.

A road bike is a minimalist interface between a rider and the road, a small extension of the cyclist's body. If it facilitates good road bike postures, provides gearing appropriate for the rider and ride, and has tires that roll well on the road... the room for improvement diminishes rapidly.

alcjphil

Exactly, why would a Belgian hardman take a chance that his high tech frame might fall apart under him on one of the iconic bergs on the way to the finish? These races are rife with examples of equipment failures under harsh conditions. George Hincappie broke a fork steer tube during Paris Roubaix to name one. It takes a long time for new stuff to prove itself for races like that

fietsbob

Museeuw bikes , started by Johann & partners, ... carbon and flax composites

but yea 1994, things have changed over 24 years...

threeteas

Very true. I wonder if there are any pro teams that race super light steel these days?