[Closed] Road Bikes: No progress or no interest?

UCI have almost totally locked down the design so nothing really interesting can be done - all that's left is tiny marginal gains from exotic materials or design tweaks.

It's why so many pro roadies take drugs.

http://www.uci.ch/inside-uci/rules-and-regulations/equipment-165067/
Speak to the UCI abut the rules....

To be fair road bikes have existed for over 100 years, so it's not that surprising that improvements are incremental. Plus a Principia with Chorus on was a damn high end spec bike, so it's not that big a surprise that 10 odd years on it's still decent.

All of the above, plus the fact that it's a bike designed for one surface, so there's a limit to what changes can be made that actually make much of a difference. Whereas mtb's have to cope with huge varieties of terrain and surfaces, which encourages more radical innovations and proliferation of niches.

roverpig - Member
So, has there been less progress (or at least less change) in road bikes or is it just that I no longer care about the changes that have taken place?

Your Rex was a very very good £1K+? frame 13 years ago, probably close to the best alu frames today.

Geometry hasn't changed because they worked out what's best several decades ago - it took a while for that to happen with mtbs.

So yes the gains are pretty marginal, though plenty here will buy the latest 25mm rims or whatever because they have a need to spend money on their hobby.

That almost uniform silhouette of a road bike is one of the things I love about them.

Plenty of subtle tech differences once you dig deeper though. More gears / electric shift / more carbon, etc.

That silhouette is set to change more dramatically with discs now anyway.

All of the above, plus the fact that it's a bike designed for one surface, so there's a limit to what changes can be made that actually make much of a difference.

Recumbents are designed for the same surface, and manage to be a lot faster, much comfier, and safer too.

My Cannondale CAAD4 was a sub £1000 bike in 2005*, Ok so it's now got a contemporary Dura ace group set, new finishing kit and wheels but it's still the same bike. Demo'd a SuperSix, it was different, but not enough to make me dig out the £2000 an upgrade would cost.

At some point it'll probably go 11s when the cassettes on spare wheels get worn, and some pimp wheels, but unless the frame actually dies it won't be replaced any time soon.

*Not entirely sure as the current CAAD8 and CAAD10 seem to have been tweeked over the years without changing model numbers, but IIRC at the time they just filtered down the range so the CAAD4 really is the pro frame from <2002.

Recumbents are designed for the same surface, and manage to be a lot faster, much comfier, and safer too.

Depends how you define safer, in a crash sliding out on a bit of gravel, maybe. But filtering through traffic or on narrow lanes, they're candidates for the Darwin awards.

Your Rex was a very very good £1K+? frame 13 years ago

Fair point, although this was back in the day when you could still get bargains on Ebay (something that has changed). I paid something stupid like £300 for a "new old stock" frame. But yes, I think it had been something like £1,200 new. The drivetrain was also some deal or other and the wheels were second hand (although still look like new). But I guess that's part of my point. It's a lot easier to justify buying your dream bike if you are still going to be riding it in 10-15 years time.

bencooper - Member

Recumbents are designed for the same surface, and manage to be a lot faster, much comfier, and safer too.

1 word:

kerbs.

How about

disc brakes
electronic shifting
tubeless tyres
endurance/TT/race sub classes of road bikes with different geometry
11 speed
Carbon compliance layups

That almost uniform silhouette of a road bike is one of the things I love about them.

Plenty of subtle tech differences once you dig deeper though. More gears / electric shift / more carbon, etc.

+1 all the above

11 speeds.
electronic shifting.
hydraulic disc or hydraulic rim brakes.
Rear seatstay (Pinarello), seattube (trek) or seatpost (Canyon) suspension.

For all the criticism of the UCI for being Luddites, I'm happier [i]not[/i] having 3 different wheel size standards, just wait 'til disc brakes take off there'll be all manner of dropout width and axle diameter standards before the dust settles...

Honestly road bikes have been around for a long time, mountain bikes haven't It's good to see mountain biking working out what works for itself, if we don't try different things we wouldn't know if they worked.

I'm glad I'm not stuck with QR axles and the rest 😉

Seen some of the XC wheel changes and they look as fast if not quicker/easier than the road stuff.

How about

disc brakes
electronic shifting
tubeless tyres
endurance/TT/race sub classes of road bikes with different geometry
11 speed
Carbon compliance layups

Thanks. I guess that was what was confusing me. I couldn't decide if there had been no changes, or lots of changes, but I just didn't care about any of them. It looks as though it's the latter 🙂

I think the big difference is things like looking at the DH bikes from back in the day with 80mm forks and a couple of inches rear travel on what looks more like a botched HT frame. In comparison the gears and electronics etc on a road bike don't really stand out

disc brakes - Yes progress (in certain situations)
electronic shifting - Yes progress
tubeless tyres - Not progress, I'd still say tubs are better
endurance/TT/race sub classes of road bikes with different geometry - Not progress were around prior to 2002
11 speed - Minor progress as 10 speed was introduced in 2003
Carbon compliance layups - Minor progress

Things not progress: press fit bottom brackets, flared headtubes, ever increasing amount of 'standards', wheels requiring finance for purchase.

Why is electronic shifting and cramming yet more sprockets in at the back wheel seen as "progress" and not just marketing B/S (like 26/29/650B)?

I see relatively little progress in either mtb (bar geometry, 1x and maybe dropper posts) or road (tubeless and disc brakes) since say 2002 TBH, most of it is just designed to get money out of your wallet and offers little genuine benefit to me (budget xc & road rider).

somewhatslightlydazed - Member
Why is electronic shifting and cramming yet more sprockets in at the back wheel seen as "progress" and not just marketing B/S (like 26/29/650B)?

because people are idiots, especially people with money to spend on their hobby.

how long till 12 speed comes out? - my commuter has clocked up nearly 60miles, and is looking a little dated, etc.

perhaps because for certain applications it is progress, like 29" wheels are progress especially in the XC world. Sometimes people like to call BS when it's more like change or wait for it an actual improvement.

The essential design of the bicycle - diamond frame, chain drive with bearings for forks and bottom bracket + hub and spoke wheels was so perfect that despite 100+ years and huge amounts of ££ and $$ spent, we've not really been able to make a huge amount of progress.

To me, that's a triumph of design and engineering. One of the reasons I love cycling is the mechanics are still accessible to an amateur like me and I can do most of my own maintenance, whereas I can't fix my phone or my car - they're too complex.

From the late 1880s - the Rover Safety - the fundamentals haven't changed much really...

[img] [/img]

I see relatively little progress in either mtb .... since say 2002 TBH,

We’re prepared to accept a flurry of blows for even talking about the climbing performance of a 43lb bike, though the fact we rode back up to the top of every section rather than pushing says a lot
about how well the V10 pedals.
Read more at http://bikemagic.com/bikes/uk-exclusive-we-ride-the-santa-cruz-v10.html#wmoDWeuD80eUvmKQ.99

Bit extreme but to say no progress is a little cynical

I was meaning for the riding I do.

my bike from 2002
[img] [/img]

my 2014 bike
[img] [/img]

ive still got the Bear, recently rebuilt it, its OK but the Process is miles better than it up, down , along and upside down

geo, suspension, dropper all offer big improvements

cynic-al - Member
I was meaning for the riding I do.

how long till 12 speed comes out? - my commuter has clocked up nearly 60miles, and is looking a little dated, etc.

There's a train of thought that thinks Shimano will have 12speed XTR out sooner rather than later to compete properly with XX1 as Shimano (internally) sets a very high threshold for quality & performance and apparently rejected 10-42 11 speed due to the jumps between gears.

And Di2 is both lighter and nicer to use. Only relevant to probably the top 1%, but that's where the development (and DA prices) is aimed, for the rest of us there's Claris (really, even Sora isn't going to get you to the café and back any quicker).

Why is electronic shifting and cramming yet more sprockets in at the back wheel seen as "progress" and not just marketing B/S

Electronic is an option, like a dropper post, not a new 'obligatory' standard.

And they've been adding sprockets to cassettes for years (arguably since the first flip/flop 2 speed wheels) so it's incremental, not a sudden epiphany that we've been doing it wrong all this time. I agree it has the same effect as making older kit obsolete (like my 200 quid 6700 Ultregra wheels that wont take an 11spd hub).

Road bikes are struggling with 11spd + discs -they're either adopting MTB 135mm axles which means longer stays to get the clearance which means less racy bikes, or going to novel wheel builds like specialized.

Actually, ignoring all the gimmicks, there is a lot of progress in road bikes. Year on year you tend to get better eg. stronger/lighter kit at any given price point. To me that seems like real progress.

Don't knock 11 speed on the road bike 'till you've tried it, 52/36 with a 25/12 cassette on my race bike and it's truly sublime ("only" 105 too), rode it at the weekend and I'm always blown away, constantly feels like you're in the perfect gear and changing gear is perfect!

Depends how you define safer, in a crash sliding out on a bit of gravel, maybe. But filtering through traffic or on narrow lanes, they're candidates for the Darwin awards.

Not true. I commuted on one into Glasgow city centre for 4 years, and found it a lot safer than my MTB. Partly being unusual they get a lot more noticed on the road, much less likely to have car drivers pull out on me or try to squeeze past. Partly being eye-level with car drivers instead of above them, could look them in the eye. And partly if they did do something silly, would hit feet-first instead of head-first.